Materials & Welding

 Appendix M is a non-mandatory appendix. Accordingly, its requirements cannot be enforced by the Client unless they are expressly stated in the contract or incorporated by reference in an applicable project document.   On Thu, Jun 4, 2026 at 9:40 AM 'manish kulkarni' via Materials & Welding < materials-welding@googlegroups.com > wrote: Yes , it should be done in PQR as well . Convince customer for the approach Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Thursday, June 4, 2026, 11:31 AM, Nambirajan Avudaiappan < nambirajanavudaiappan@gmail.com > wrote: This requirement is not applicable to PQR; it is applicable to WPQR. For WPQR, can we measure the ferrite content using a ferritoscope during production in the shop, instead of performing the point count method? Regards, Nambirajan A ...

Hi pradeep   It is client requirement. On Sun, 7 Jun 2026, 08:12 pradip kumar Sil, < pradipsil@gmail.com > wrote:  Appendix M is a non-mandatory appendix. Accordingly, its requirements cannot be enforced by the Client unless they are expressly stated in the contract or incorporated by reference in an applicable project document.   On Thu, Jun 4, 2026 at 9:40 AM 'manish kulkarni' via Materials & Welding < materials-welding@googlegroups.com > wrote: Yes , it should be done in PQR as well . Convince customer for the approach Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Thursday, June 4, 2026, 11:31 AM, Nambirajan Avudaiappan < nambirajanavudaiappan@gmail.com > wrote: This requirement is not applicable to PQR; it is applicable to WPQR. ...

Dear Experts, During my review of the WPS, I noted that a 4 mm GMAW wire has been specified. However, this wire size is not listed in the manufacturer’s technical datasheet available on their website. Although the vendor has submitted the wire MTC, there appears to be a discrepancy between the documented specifications and the datasheet. Additionally, I am surprised to observe that welding has reportedly been carried out at a current of 900 amps using this wire. I would appreciate your clarification on the feasibility and justification of this parameter, as it seems unusually high for GMAW applications. Kindly provide your technical inputs and supporting references for the above points. Best regards, Nambi -- https://materials-welding.blogspot.com/ https://www.linkedin.com/groups/122787 --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Materials & Welding" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails fr...

Dear Experts, Good morning! Has anyone performed ferrite–austenite phase evaluation for Duplex Stainless Steel (DSS)? As per my understanding, this requirement has been incorporated in ASME Section IX under Non-Mandatory Appendix M (M-600). I would appreciate if you could share your experience, procedures followed, or any practical challenges faced during implementation. Whether we can do with any machines without help of labratories Looking forward to your valuable inputs. -- https://materials-welding.blogspot.com/ https://www.linkedin.com/groups/122787 --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Materials & Welding" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to materials-welding+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com . To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/materials-welding/CAJuyB2W4yRfBs9N1zWWFd6EfNApA8u7-dqMYgr0HsXCkEDJVhA%40mail.gmail...

The steps are : 1. Establish the PQR with extreme care as welding parameters will play crucial role in phase formation. 2. Do the ASTM 562 ( ferrite count by metallography) and ferritoscope( this is a portable machine and to be used on production weld principle is magnetic here ). 3. Welding on production weld shall be done by welding parameters established during PQR establishment. 4. With ferritoscope production weld phase can be measured. On Thu, Jun 4, 2026, 9:13 AM Nambirajan Avudaiappan < nambirajanavudaiappan@gmail.com > wrote: Dear Experts, Good morning! Has anyone performed ferrite–austenite phase evaluation for Duplex Stainless Steel (DSS)? As per my understanding, this requirement has been incorporated in ASME Section IX under Non-Mandatory Appendix M (M-600). I would appreciate if you could share your experience, procedures followed, or any practical challenges faced during implementation. Whet...

As per API 650, local deviations from the theoretical shape (for example, weld discontinuities and flat spots) shall be limited as follows: a) Deviations (peaking) at vertical weld joints shall not exceed 13 mm (1/2 in.). Peaking at vertical weld joints shall be determined using a horizontal sweep board 900 mm (36 in.) long. The sweep board shall be made to the nominal radius of the tank. b) Deviations (banding) at horizontal weld joints shall not exceed 13 mm (1/2 in.). Banding at horizontal weld joints shall be determined using a straight-edge vertical sweep board 900 mm (36 in.) long. How is this value verified at site? For example, at a vertical joint, if one side shows 6 mm and the other side shows 7 mm, is it acceptable? Or should the average be considered? Also, how can we determine whether the deviation is negative (-) or positive (+)? Can anyone please explain? -- https://materials-welding.blogspot.com/ https://www.linkedin.com/groups/122787 --- You received this mess...