Materials & Welding: 2010

Friday, December 31, 2010

RE: [MW:9045] Reason for Burn Through defect

Hi!

For Burn Through in SMAW, when the material being welded is too thin while using bigger diameter electrode than what is required. For automatic welding, machine malfunctions may cause Burn Through like when machine travel or object being welded stops suddenly while there is continuous welding process. Also, for those requiring tack welds, when there is insufficient weld prior to full welding.

Thanks.

From: materials-welding@googlegroups.com [mailto:materials-welding@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of manoj john
Sent: Friday, December 31, 2010 2:00 PM
To: materials-welding@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [MW:9042] reason for burnthrough defect

Dear Sankar,

The following are the main reason for burn through:

1. Very slow travel speed and high current.

2. High heat input.

3. Large root opening.

4. Uneven root face.

5. Unskilled welder or welding operator.

Thanks & Regards.

Manoj

On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 7:30 PM, shankark <shankark.qc@gmail.com> wrote:

we got BT defect in smaw process welding using E6010 for root, and
E7018 for hotpass, capping. what could be the reason for this defect
and how we can avoid it.

thanks,
shankar

--
To post to this group, send email to materials-welding@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to materials-welding+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group's bolg at http://materials-welding.blogspot.com/
The views expressed/exchnaged in this group are members personel views and meant for educational purposes only, Users must take their own decisions w.r.t. applicable code/standard/contract documents.

--
To post to this group, send email to materials-welding@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to materials-welding+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group's bolg at http://materials-welding.blogspot.com/
The views expressed/exchnaged in this group are members personel views and meant for educational purposes only, Users must take their own decisions w.r.t. applicable code/standard/contract documents.

RE: [MW:9044] Tempering Temp - IBR Cr-Mo Forged Steel valves

Refer Para 4.1 (i) of UOP Spec 3-12-5 (Pressure Vessels – Low Alloy Steels) states, the tempering temperature for tempered material shall be at least 50 ºF (28 ºC) greater than the maximum intermediate or post weld heat treatment temperature.

Also if you refer note (a) of table 5 - API 582, which states that for QT or NT materials, the PWHT holding temp shall be at least 15° C below the original tempering temperature of the base metal unless the fabricator demonstrates that mechanical properties can be achieved at a higher PWHT temperature and holding time.

Regds/Jignesh

From: materials-welding@googlegroups.com [mailto:materials-welding@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of asad azmi
Sent: Friday, December 31, 2010 5:34 PM
To: materials-welding@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [MW:9040] Tempering Temp - IBR Cr-Mo Forged Steel valves

can you pls provide UOP para( Extract) which states --

Tempering temp shall be 28 °C higher than PWHT temp)

Regards

On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 12:58 PM, Bathula Raghuram (Mumbai - PIPING) <R.Bathula@ticb.com> wrote:

IBR regulation 282a: states tempering temperature for P11 shall be 620-660 °C and for P22 it shall be between 650-700 °C.
Whereas Minimum PWHT temperature for B31.3 piping is 704 °C, when we restrict the min tempering temp to (e.g. 730 °C), forging vendors are denying to meet the requirement (e.g. welded valves), quoting IBR regulation 282a.

However there is a note at the end "The tempering temperature may be varied by the Inspecting Authority to suit the steel being tempered".

My question is had anybody approached in the past and able to convince IBR for higher tempering temperatures?

Q: how forging vendors are meeting this requirement when PWHT temperature shouldn't exceed tempering temperature (for e.g. UOP states tempering temp shall be 28 °C higher than PWHT temp)

Filtered by Hosted Filtering

--
To post to this group, send email to materials-welding@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to materials-welding+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group's bolg at http://materials-welding.blogspot.com/
The views expressed/exchnaged in this group are members personel views and meant for educational purposes only, Users must take their own decisions w.r.t. applicable code/standard/contract documents.

Re: [MW:9043] Tempering Temp - IBR Cr-Mo Forged Steel valves

refer UOP # 3-12-5 para 4.1.i.

The tempering temperature for tempered material shall be at least 50 ºF (28 ºC)

greater than the maximum intermediate or postweld heat treatment temperature.

On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 5:33 PM, asad azmi <azmiasadayub@gmail.com> wrote:

can you pls provide UOP para( Extract) which states --

Tempering temp shall be 28 °C higher than PWHT temp)

Regards

On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 12:58 PM, Bathula Raghuram (Mumbai - PIPING) <R.Bathula@ticb.com> wrote:

IBR regulation 282a: states tempering temperature for P11 shall be 620-660 °C and for P22 it shall be between 650-700 °C.
Whereas Minimum PWHT temperature for B31.3 piping is 704 °C, when we restrict the min tempering temp to (e.g. 730 °C), forging vendors are denying to meet the requirement (e.g. welded valves), quoting IBR regulation 282a.

However there is a note at the end "The tempering temperature may be varied by the Inspecting Authority to suit the steel being tempered".

My question is had anybody approached in the past and able to convince IBR for higher tempering temperatures?

Q: how forging vendors are meeting this requirement when PWHT temperature shouldn't exceed tempering temperature (for e.g. UOP states tempering temp shall be 28 °C higher than PWHT temp)

.

Re: [MW:9040] Tempering Temp - IBR Cr-Mo Forged Steel valves

can you pls provide UOP para( Extract) which states --

Tempering temp shall be 28 °C higher than PWHT temp)

Regards

On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 12:58 PM, Bathula Raghuram (Mumbai - PIPING) <R.Bathula@ticb.com> wrote:

IBR regulation 282a: states tempering temperature for P11 shall be 620-660 °C and for P22 it shall be between 650-700 °C.
Whereas Minimum PWHT temperature for B31.3 piping is 704 °C, when we restrict the min tempering temp to (e.g. 730 °C), forging vendors are denying to meet the requirement (e.g. welded valves), quoting IBR regulation 282a.

However there is a note at the end "The tempering temperature may be varied by the Inspecting Authority to suit the steel being tempered".

My question is had anybody approached in the past and able to convince IBR for higher tempering temperatures?

Q: how forging vendors are meeting this requirement when PWHT temperature shouldn't exceed tempering temperature (for e.g. UOP states tempering temp shall be 28 °C higher than PWHT temp)

Filtered by Hosted Filtering

--
To post to this group, send email to materials-welding@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to materials-welding+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group's bolg at http://materials-welding.blogspot.com/
The views expressed/exchnaged in this group are members personel views and meant for educational purposes only, Users must take their own decisions w.r.t. applicable code/standard/contract documents.

Re: [MW:9041] Technical solution

Pradip,

I hope that you are aware that E 6010/ E 7010 are cellulosic electrodes, and it is widely used,

1. for welding the root pass and or all passes of single sided welds, most of the time for pipelines and flowlines welding.
2. for welding root pass of pipings under B31.3 scope, but with caution of slag on the root side.
3. To achieve a full penetration weld, the cellulosic electrodes produce a forceful spray type arc, which you not be able to achieve with a E7018 electrode due to its reletively soft arc.

the reason why E6010 is selected for root pass welding is mainly due to above mentioned facts and also you should note that E 6010 welds are deposited with downhill progresion, that means you'll only be depositing only a very thin root pass. this thin root pass doesnt contribute more from the design / strength point of view. more over the dilution of root pass by the adjacent base materials and the subsequent penetration of the hot pass will result in a root pass having chemical and mechanical properties away from that of an undiluted E6010 weldmetal.

Also please check one of your E6010 electrode batch certificates meeting the 70ksi requirements (most of the time), again it doesnt matter.

The second part of your question, you'll have to check SFA 5.5 instead of SFA 5.1 to find the requirements of 7010-G or E 7010-P1.

There are many manufacturers like Lincoln, Bohler-Austria, Thyssen-Germany, ESAB to give you 7010-G E 7010-P1.

Hope this is clear,

Regards,

A.Praveen

--- On Thu, 12/30/10, pradip kumar sil <pradipsil@gmail.com> wrote:

From: pradip kumar sil <pradipsil@gmail.com>
Subject: [MW:9025] Technical solution
To: materials-welding@googlegroups.com
Date: Thursday, December 30, 2010, 6:23 PM

Dear All,
When we use GTAW , we are using ER-70S2/E-7018( Same tensile) combination, alternatively in SMAW , we are using E-6010/E-7018( Different tensile) instead of E-7010. E-7010 is not available(as per ASME) in the market. Is there any technical problem to manufacture it or to use it.
Can somebody tell it.
Regards
Pradip
--
To post to this group, send email to materials-welding@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to materials-welding+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group's bolg at http://materials-welding.blogspot.com/
The views expressed/exchnaged in this group are members personel views and meant for educational purposes only, Users must take their own decisions w.r.t. applicable code/standard/contract documents.

Re: [MW:9042] reason for burnthrough defect

Dear Sankar,

The following are the main reason for burn through:

1. Very slow travel speed and high current.

2. High heat input.

3. Large root opening.

4. Uneven root face.

5. Unskilled welder or welding operator.

Thanks & Regards.

Manoj

On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 7:30 PM, shankark <shankark.qc@gmail.com> wrote:

we got BT defect in smaw process welding using E6010 for root, and
E7018 for hotpass, capping. what could be the reason for this defect
and how we can avoid it.

thanks,
shankar

--
To post to this group, send email to materials-welding@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to materials-welding+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group's bolg at http://materials-welding.blogspot.com/
The views expressed/exchnaged in this group are members personel views and meant for educational purposes only, Users must take their own decisions w.r.t. applicable code/standard/contract documents.

[MW:9038] Re: 9027] Re: Stress Corrosion Cracking Test

Dear Pradip,

I just saw your reaction in this topic, I don't know why but I didn't
receive it in my private mail box. So therefore I didn't receive the
attachments to this message you refer to.
Can you please send me these documents again directly to my personal
mailbox?
I will ask my previous colleagues at Exova laboratory (formerly
Bodycote) if one of their laboratories as experience with this G36 SCC
test and CaCl2 solution.
Problem is only that they have holiday because of Newyear on this
moment so first possibility for that will be January 3th.

Wish you all a happy New year.

Best Regards

Herman Pieper

On 30 dec, 22:41, "pgoswami" <pgosw...@quickclic.net> wrote:
> Mr.. Herman and Mr Rana,
>
> Attached are some documents which references Chloride SCC in CaCl2 solution.
>
> ASTM G-36, is a very long established standard for chloride SCC. I have
> come across of some literatures reporting that MgCl2 test being aggressive
> on a number of stainless steels.Hence a more moderate one e.g CaCl2 test is
> followed by the industry.
>
> Many manufacturers of duplex SS refers to SCC in CaCl2 media. However to
> the best of my knowledge no ASTM standard cross refers CaCl2 media for
> chloride SCC.
>
> Mr. Herman,if you have more information through your association with
> various labs/testing facilities,may put up the updates.
>
> Please see the extracts from G-36 on the pros and cons of MgCl2 test.
>
> Thanks
>
> Pradip Goswami,P.Eng.,IWE.
> Welding & Metallurgical Specialist & Consultant
> Email-pgoswami@ <mailto:sympatico.capgosw...@quickclic.net> sympatico.ca,
> pgosw...@quickclic.net
>
> G-36 extracts:-
>
> *
>
> This practice describes a procedure for conducting stress-corrosion
> cracking tests in a boiling magnesium chloride solution. Although this test
> may be performed using various concentrations of magnesium chloride, this
> procedure covers a test solution held at a constant boiling temperature of
> 155.deg°C (311.deg°F).
>
> *
>
> The boiling magnesium chloride test is applicable to wrought, cast,
> and welded stainless steels and related alloys. It's a method for detecting
> the effects of composition, heat treatment, surface finish, microstructure,
> and stress on the susceptibility of these materials to chloride stress
> corrosion cracking
>
> *
>
> Boiling magnesium chloride may also cause pitting of many stainless
> alloys. This leads to the possibility of confusing stress-corrosion failures
> with mechanical failures induced by corrosion-reduced net cross sections.
> This danger is particularly great when small cross section samples, high
> applied stress levels, long exposure periods, stress-corrosion resistant
> alloys, or a combination thereof are being used. Careful examination is
> recommended for correct diagnosis of the cause of failure.
>
> *
>
> For most applications, this environment provides an accelerated
> method of ranking the relative degree of stress corrosion cracking
> susceptibility for stainless steels and related alloys in aqueous
> chloride-containing environments. Materials that normally provide acceptable
> resistance in hot chloride service may crack in this test. The test may not
> be relevant to stress-corrosion cracking in polythionic acid or caustic
> environments.
>
> _____
>
> From: materials-welding@googlegroups.com
> [mailto:materials-welding@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of
> jignesh.r...@Linde-LE.com
> Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2010 7:48 AM
> To: materials-welding@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: [MW:9027] Re: Stress Corrosion Cracking Test
>
> Dear Mr. Herman
>
> Thanks for quick reply.
>
> It is not mistake in specification. Specification categorically demands 40%
> CaCl2 solution (Ph -6.5, Testing time - 500 Hrs., 100 Deg Boiling,
> Acceptance criteria - Stress to cause rupture shall exceed 0.85 times UTS,
> as per ASTM G 46)
>
> Further, specification calls for MgCl2 solution for Duplex grade as per G
> 36.
>
> Since, aberrant solution is being asked for testing as per ASTM G 36,
> precisely the question was put in this forum.
>
> Request all team members to share views of chloride stress corrosion test of
> super Duplex ( S 32750)
>
> With Best Regards,
>
> Jignesh R Rana
> Manager - QA & QC
>
> Linde Engineering India Pvt. Ltd.
> 38, Nutan Bharat Society, Alkapuri, Vadodara 390007, India
> Tel.: +91 265 3056789, Fax: +91 265 2335213 , Mobil: +91 90999 86019
> jignesh.r...@linde-le.com,www.linde-india.com
>
> This e-mail is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please
> notify us immediately. You should not disclose its contents to any other
> person nor use it for any purposes.
>
> hpi001 <pieper-...@kpnmail.nl>
> Sent by: materials-welding@googlegroups.com
>
> 30/12/10 16:53
>
> Please respond to
> materials-welding@googlegroups.com
>
> To
> "Materials & Welding" <materials-welding@googlegroups.com>
>
> cc
>
> Subject
> [MW:9019] Re: Stress Corrosion Cracking Test
>
> Why does anyone asking for ASTM G36 with an aberrant test solution?
> Probably there will be no big difference between both solutions
> because Chloride is the important part in this test but by choosing
> for CaCl you won't have any reference or acceptance criteria or is
> this also specified in the project specification? Can it be a mistake
> in the specification as well?
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Herman Pieper
>
> On 30 dec, 11:44, jignesh.r...@Linde-LE.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Dear Members,
>
> > One of our project specification calls for Chloride Stress Corrosion
> > Cracking as the ASTM G 36 with CaCl2 (40%) solution for super Duplex
> > Stainless steel ( S 32750)
>
> > ASTM G- 36 is based on MgCl2 solution.
>
> > Does any one having experience with SCCT with CaCl2 solution ?
>
> > With Best Regards,
>
> > Jignesh R Rana
> > Manager - QA & QC
>
> > Linde Engineering India Pvt. Ltd.
> > 38, Nutan Bharat Society, Alkapuri, Vadodara 390007, India
> > Tel.: +91 265 3056789, Fax: +91 265 2335213 , Mobil: +91 90999 86019
> > jignesh.r...@linde-le.com,www.linde-india.com
>
> > This e-mail is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please
> > notify us immediately. You should not disclose its contents to any other
> > person nor use it for any purposes.
>
> --
> To post to this group, send email to materials-welding@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> materials-welding+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group's bolg athttp://materials-welding.blogspot.com/
> The views expressed/exchnaged in this group are members personel views and
> meant for educational purposes only, Users must take their own decisions
> w.r.t. applicable code/standard/contract documents.
>
> --
> To post to this group, send email to materials-welding@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> materials-welding+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group's bolg athttp://materials-welding.blogspot.com/
> The views expressed/exchnaged in this group are members personel views and
> meant for educational purposes only, Users must take their own decisions
> w.r.t. applicable code/standard/contract documents.

RE: [MW:9039] Technical solution

Hi Shankar,

7010-G available with Bohler Welding .They stock it in India and approved by some major Piping contractors.

From: materials-welding@googlegroups.com [mailto:materials-welding@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Suresh
Sent: Friday, December 31, 2010 10:39 AM
To: materials-welding@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [MW:9035] Technical solution

Hii Sankar ,

Plz check below quote from D&H in India , E 7010 Electrode is available in Indian Market . you can choose it .

D&H Secheron through well-built hard work in research and development will meet the various demands of our customers. Below please find a category wise kisting of our latest products.

SMAW / MMAW Electrodes

Mild Steel Electrodes

PRODUCT NAME	AWS CODE	IS CODE
CELLUTHERME - Mo	E7010-G	E7070-G

On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 6:23 PM, pradip kumar sil <pradipsil@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear All,

When we use GTAW , we are using ER-70S2/E-7018( Same tensile) combination, alternatively in SMAW , we are using E-6010/E-7018( Different tensile) instead of E-7010. E-7010 is not available(as per ASME) in the market. Is there any technical problem to manufacture it or to use it.

Can somebody tell it.

Regards

Pradip

--
Thanks & Best Regards,

Suresh

Mobile No: 91-92 92 905 905

[MW:9037] BT

Burn Through in your case I understand was caused with the hot pass.

It is caused by electrode diameter or excessive power, thin root, poor handling of electrode, large root gap before root pass, position of job.

Not knowing your electrode travel direction I advise you as follows.

E6010 produces a strong weld. However to minimise burn through situations, I would recommend a second pass with E6010 on vertical down travel to thicken the root, or, vertical up travel with a smaller E7018 electrode, or, weld a separate plate/pipe with the parameters that is most suitable for you, or, run a welding procedure for anyone to follow.

Hope it helps

Regards

Ariel Tendeiro

Re: [MW:9035] Technical solution

D&H Secheron through well-built hard work in research and development will meet the various demands of our customers. Below please find a category wise kisting of our latest products.

Mild Steel Electrodes

PRODUCT NAME	AWS CODE	IS CODE
CELLUTHERME - Mo	E7010-G	E7070-G

On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 6:23 PM, pradip kumar sil <pradipsil@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear All,

When we use GTAW , we are using ER-70S2/E-7018( Same tensile) combination, alternatively in SMAW , we are using E-6010/E-7018( Different tensile) instead of E-7010. E-7010 is not available(as per ASME) in the market. Is there any technical problem to manufacture it or to use it.

Can somebody tell it.

Regards

Pradip

--
To post to this group, send email to materials-welding@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to materials-welding+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group's bolg at http://materials-welding.blogspot.com/
The views expressed/exchnaged in this group are members personel views and meant for educational purposes only, Users must take their own decisions w.r.t. applicable code/standard/contract documents.

--
Thanks & Best Regards,

Suresh

Mobile No: 91-92 92 905 905

Re: [MW:9036] Re: Technical solution

E7010 IS SUITABLE FOR DOWNHILL WELDING

E6010 SUTABLE FOR UPHILL WELDING

On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 10:56 PM, <fred.schweighardt@airliquide.com> wrote:

E7010 is readily available in the US from Lincoln, Esab, Hobart, and
others

On Dec 30, 6:53 am, pradip kumar sil <pradip...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> When we use GTAW , we are using ER-70S2/E-7018( Same tensile) combination,
> alternatively in SMAW , we are using E-6010/E-7018( Different tensile)
> instead of E-7010. E-7010 is not available(as per ASME) in the market. Is
> there any technical problem to manufacture it or to use it.
>
> Can somebody tell it.
>
> Regards
>
> Pradip

--
To post to this group, send email to materials-welding@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to materials-welding+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group's bolg at http://materials-welding.blogspot.com/
The views expressed/exchnaged in this group are members personel views and meant for educational purposes only, Users must take their own decisions w.r.t. applicable code/standard/contract documents.

--
Premkumar.B

Re: [MW:9034] RE: 9018] Stress Corrosion Cracking Test

Also find this one.

Regards,

Jaydeep Joshi | TDW India Limited

Plot No 16 | Phase –III | Alindra – Savli G.I.D.C | Taluka : Savli | Vadodara – 391 775

Board : +91-2667- 619900 | Fax : +91- 2667- 619501| Extension : 7845

E-Mail : jaydeep.joshi@tdwilliamson.com | www.tdwilliamson.com

Cell: +91 9978959626

P Before printing, Think about ENVIRONMENTAL responsibility

On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 9:36 PM, <jignesh_rana@indiatimes.com> wrote:

Hi Elumali,

Thanks for quick feedback.

Yes, it is corrosion test and being done at laboratory having appropriate set up. But the question is that project specification requires it as per ASTM G 36 ,with cacl2 solution.

Request to provide more information, if available.
regards,
jignesh rana

----- Original Message -----
From: Sundaram Elumalai
To: materials-welding@googlegroups.com

Sent: Thu, 30 Dec 2010 17:06:10 +0530 (IST)
Subject: [MW:9021] RE: 9018] Stress Corrosion Cracking Test

Hi,

This is one corrosion test need to be done
at approved Lab. So you may check in your region, who is doing this test.

With Kind regards,

S.Elumalai.

From: materials-welding@googlegroups.com [mailto:materials-welding@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of jignesh.rana@Linde-LE.com

Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2010
1:45 PM

To: 'materials-welding@googlegroups.com'

Subject: [MW:9018] Stress
Corrosion Cracking Test

Dear Members,

One
of our project specification calls for Chloride Stress Corrosion Cracking as
the ASTM G 36 with CaCl2 (40%) solution for super Duplex Stainless steel ( S
32750)

ASTM
G- 36 is based on MgCl2 solution.

Does
any one having experience with SCCT with CaCl2 solution ?

With
Best Regards,

Jignesh R Rana

Manager - QA & QC

Linde Engineering India Pvt. Ltd.

38, Nutan Bharat Society, Alkapuri, Vadodara 390007, India

Tel.: +91 265 3056789, Fax: +91 265 2335213 , Mobil: +91 90999 86019

jignesh.rana@linde-le.com, www.linde-india.com

This e-mail is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please
notify us immediately. You should not disclose its contents to any other person
nor use it for any purposes.

--

To post to this group, send email to materials-welding@googlegroups.com

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to materials-welding+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

For more options, visit this group's bolg at http://materials-welding.blogspot.com/

The views expressed/exchnaged in this group are members personel views and
meant for educational purposes only, Users must take their own decisions w.r.t.
applicable code/standard/contract documents.

--

To post to this group, send email to materials-welding@googlegroups.com

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to materials-welding+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

For more options, visit this group's bolg at http://materials-welding.blogspot.com/

The views expressed/exchnaged in this group are members personel views and meant for educational purposes only, Users must take their own decisions w.r.t. applicable code/standard/contract documents.

--
To post to this group, send email to materials-welding@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to materials-welding+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group's bolg at http://materials-welding.blogspot.com/
The views expressed/exchnaged in this group are members personel views and meant for educational purposes only, Users must take their own decisions w.r.t. applicable code/standard/contract documents.

Re: [MW:9033] RE: 9027] Re: Stress Corrosion Cracking Test

Dear Mr. Rana,

Please find the attacehd TWI report.

This may help you.

Regards,

Jaydeep Joshi | TDW India Limited

Plot No 16 | Phase –III | Alindra – Savli G.I.D.C | Taluka : Savli | Vadodara – 391 775

Board : +91-2667- 619900 | Fax : +91- 2667- 619501| Extension : 7845

E-Mail : jaydeep.joshi@tdwilliamson.com | www.tdwilliamson.com

Cell: +91 9978959626

P Before printing, Think about ENVIRONMENTAL responsibility

On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 3:11 AM, pgoswami <pgoswami@quickclic.net> wrote:

Mr.. Herman and Mr Rana,

Attached are some documents which references Chloride SCC in CaCl2 solution.

ASTM G-36, is a very long established standard for chloride SCC. I have come across of some literatures reporting that MgCl2 test being aggressive on a number of stainless steels.Hence a more moderate one e.g CaCl2 test is followed by the industry.

Many manufacturers of duplex SS refers to SCC in CaCl2 media. However to the best of my knowledge no ASTM standard cross refers CaCl2 media for chloride SCC.

Mr. Herman,if you have more information through your association with various labs/testing facilities,may put up the updates.

Please see the extracts from G-36 on the pros and cons of MgCl2 test.

Thanks

Pradip Goswami,P.Eng.,IWE.

Welding & Metallurgical Specialist & Consultant

Email-pgoswami@sympatico.ca,

pgoswami@quickclic.net

G-36 extracts:-

This practice describes a procedure for conducting stress-corrosion cracking tests in a boiling magnesium chloride solution. Although this test may be performed using various concentrations of magnesium chloride, this procedure covers a test solution held at a constant boiling temperature of 155.deg°C (311.deg°F).

The boiling magnesium chloride test is applicable to wrought, cast, and welded stainless steels and related alloys. It's a method for detecting the effects of composition, heat treatment, surface finish, microstructure, and stress on the susceptibility of these materials to chloride stress corrosion cracking

Boiling magnesium chloride may also cause pitting of many stainless alloys. This leads to the possibility of confusing stress-corrosion failures with mechanical failures induced by corrosion-reduced net cross sections. This danger is particularly great when small cross section samples, high applied stress levels, long exposure periods, stress-corrosion resistant alloys, or a combination thereof are being used. Careful examination is recommended for correct diagnosis of the cause of failure.

For most applications, this environment provides an accelerated method of ranking the relative degree of stress corrosion cracking susceptibility for stainless steels and related alloys in aqueous chloride-containing environments. Materials that normally provide acceptable resistance in hot chloride service may crack in this test. The test may not be relevant to stress-corrosion cracking in polythionic acid or caustic environments.

From: materials-welding@googlegroups.com [mailto:materials-welding@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of jignesh.rana@Linde-LE.com
Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2010 7:48 AM
To: materials-welding@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [MW:9027] Re: Stress Corrosion Cracking Test

Dear Mr. Herman

Thanks for quick reply.

It is not mistake in specification. Specification categorically demands 40% CaCl2 solution (Ph -6.5, Testing time - 500 Hrs., 100 Deg Boiling, Acceptance criteria - Stress to cause rupture shall exceed 0.85 times UTS, as per ASTM G 46)

Further, specification calls for MgCl2 solution for Duplex grade as per G 36.

Since, aberrant solution is being asked for testing as per ASTM G 36, precisely the question was put in this forum.

Request all team members to share views of chloride stress corrosion test of super Duplex ( S 32750)

With Best Regards,

Jignesh R Rana
Manager - QA & QC

Linde Engineering India Pvt. Ltd.
38, Nutan Bharat Society, Alkapuri, Vadodara 390007, India
Tel.: +91 265 3056789, Fax: +91 265 2335213 , Mobil: +91 90999 86019
jignesh.rana@linde-le.com, www.linde-india.com

This e-mail is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify us immediately. You should not disclose its contents to any other person nor use it for any purposes.

hpi001 <pieper-qsi@kpnmail.nl>
Sent by: materials-welding@googlegroups.com
30/12/10 16:53

Please respond to
materials-welding@googlegroups.com

To
"Materials & Welding" <materials-welding@googlegroups.com>

cc

Subject
[MW:9019] Re: Stress Corrosion Cracking Test

Why does anyone asking for ASTM G36 with an aberrant test solution? Probably there will be no big difference between both solutions because Chloride is the important part in this test but by choosing for CaCl you won't have any reference or acceptance criteria or is this also specified in the project specification? Can it be a mistake in the specification as well? Best Regards, Herman Pieper On 30 dec, 11:44, jignesh.r...@Linde-LE.com wrote: > Dear Members, > > One of our project specification calls for Chloride Stress Corrosion > Cracking as the ASTM G 36 with CaCl2 (40%) solution for super Duplex > Stainless steel ( S 32750) > > ASTM G- 36 is based on MgCl2 solution. > > Does any one having experience with SCCT with CaCl2 solution ? > > With Best Regards, > > Jignesh R Rana > Manager - QA & QC > > Linde Engineering India Pvt. Ltd. > 38, Nutan Bharat Society, Alkapuri, Vadodara 390007, India > Tel.: +91 265 3056789, Fax: +91 265 2335213 , Mobil: +91 90999 86019 > jignesh.r...@linde-le.com,www.linde-india.com > > This e-mail is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please > notify us immediately. You should not disclose its contents to any other > person nor use it for any purposes. -- To post to this group, send email to materials-welding@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to materials-welding+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group's bolg at http://materials-welding.blogspot.com/ The views expressed/exchnaged in this group are members personel views and meant for educational purposes only, Users must take their own decisions w.r.t. applicable code/standard/contract documents.

--
To post to this group, send email to materials-welding@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to materials-welding+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group's bolg at http://materials-welding.blogspot.com/
The views expressed/exchnaged in this group are members personel views and meant for educational purposes only, Users must take their own decisions w.r.t. applicable code/standard/contract documents.

--
To post to this group, send email to materials-welding@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to materials-welding+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group's bolg at http://materials-welding.blogspot.com/
The views expressed/exchnaged in this group are members personel views and meant for educational purposes only, Users must take their own decisions w.r.t. applicable code/standard/contract documents.

[MW:9030] RE: 9027] Re: Stress Corrosion Cracking Test

Mr.. Herman and Mr Rana,

Attached are some documents which references Chloride SCC in CaCl2 solution.

ASTM G-36, is a very long established standard for chloride SCC. I have come across of some literatures reporting that MgCl2 test being aggressive on a number of stainless steels.Hence a more moderate one e.g CaCl2 test is followed by the industry.

Many manufacturers of duplex SS refers to SCC in CaCl2 media. However to the best of my knowledge no ASTM standard cross refers CaCl2 media for chloride SCC.

Mr. Herman,if you have more information through your association with various labs/testing facilities,may put up the updates.

Please see the extracts from G-36 on the pros and cons of MgCl2 test.

Thanks

Pradip Goswami,P.Eng.,IWE.

Welding & Metallurgical Specialist & Consultant

Email-pgoswami@sympatico.ca,

pgoswami@quickclic.net

G-36 extracts:-

This practice describes a procedure for conducting stress-corrosion cracking tests in a boiling magnesium chloride solution. Although this test may be performed using various concentrations of magnesium chloride, this procedure covers a test solution held at a constant boiling temperature of 155.deg°C (311.deg°F).

The boiling magnesium chloride test is applicable to wrought, cast, and welded stainless steels and related alloys. It's a method for detecting the effects of composition, heat treatment, surface finish, microstructure, and stress on the susceptibility of these materials to chloride stress corrosion cracking
Boiling magnesium chloride may also cause pitting of many stainless alloys. This leads to the possibility of confusing stress-corrosion failures with mechanical failures induced by corrosion-reduced net cross sections. This danger is particularly great when small cross section samples, high applied stress levels, long exposure periods, stress-corrosion resistant alloys, or a combination thereof are being used. Careful examination is recommended for correct diagnosis of the cause of failure.

For most applications, this environment provides an accelerated method of ranking the relative degree of stress corrosion cracking susceptibility for stainless steels and related alloys in aqueous chloride-containing environments. Materials that normally provide acceptable resistance in hot chloride service may crack in this test. The test may not be relevant to stress-corrosion cracking in polythionic acid or caustic environments.

From: materials-welding@googlegroups.com [mailto:materials-welding@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of jignesh.rana@Linde-LE.com
Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2010 7:48 AM
To: materials-welding@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [MW:9027] Re: Stress Corrosion Cracking Test

Dear Mr. Herman

Thanks for quick reply.

It is not mistake in specification. Specification categorically demands 40% CaCl2 solution (Ph -6.5, Testing time - 500 Hrs., 100 Deg Boiling, Acceptance criteria - Stress to cause rupture shall exceed 0.85 times UTS, as per ASTM G 46)

Further, specification calls for MgCl2 solution for Duplex grade as per G 36.

Since, aberrant solution is being asked for testing as per ASTM G 36, precisely the question was put in this forum.

Request all team members to share views of chloride stress corrosion test of super Duplex ( S 32750)

With Best Regards,

Jignesh R Rana
Manager - QA & QC

Linde Engineering India Pvt. Ltd.
38, Nutan Bharat Society, Alkapuri, Vadodara 390007, India
Tel.: +91 265 3056789, Fax: +91 265 2335213 , Mobil: +91 90999 86019
jignesh.rana@linde-le.com, www.linde-india.com

This e-mail is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify us immediately. You should not disclose its contents to any other person nor use it for any purposes.

hpi001 <pieper-qsi@kpnmail.nl>
Sent by: materials-welding@googlegroups.com

30/12/10 16:53

Please respond to
materials-welding@googlegroups.com

To	"Materials & Welding" <materials-welding@googlegroups.com>
cc
Subject	[MW:9019] Re: Stress Corrosion Cracking Test

Why does anyone asking for ASTM G36 with an aberrant test solution? Probably there will be no big difference between both solutions because Chloride is the important part in this test but by choosing for CaCl you won't have any reference or acceptance criteria or is this also specified in the project specification? Can it be a mistake in the specification as well? Best Regards, Herman Pieper On 30 dec, 11:44, jignesh.r...@Linde-LE.com wrote: > Dear Members, > > One of our project specification calls for Chloride Stress Corrosion > Cracking as the ASTM G 36 with CaCl2 (40%) solution for super Duplex > Stainless steel ( S 32750) > > ASTM G- 36 is based on MgCl2 solution. > > Does any one having experience with SCCT with CaCl2 solution ? > > With Best Regards, > > Jignesh R Rana > Manager - QA & QC > > Linde Engineering India Pvt. Ltd. > 38, Nutan Bharat Society, Alkapuri, Vadodara 390007, India > Tel.: +91 265 3056789, Fax: +91 265 2335213 , Mobil: +91 90999 86019 > jignesh.r...@linde-le.com,www.linde-india.com > > This e-mail is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please > notify us immediately. You should not disclose its contents to any other > person nor use it for any purposes. -- To post to this group, send email to materials-welding@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to materials-welding+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group's bolg at http://materials-welding.blogspot.com/ The views expressed/exchnaged in this group are members personel views and meant for educational purposes only, Users must take their own decisions w.r.t. applicable code/standard/contract documents.

Re: [MW:9032] reason for burnthrough defect

Hi Shankar,

Burn-through (too much penetration) is caused by having too much heat input in the weld zone. Please check the current, over current may be one reason for burnthrough.It happen when the speed is very slow so you can increase the travel speed. Burn- through can also result from having an excessive amount of root opening.

regards,

Arun S Das

From: shankark <shankark.qc@gmail.com>
To: Materials & Welding <materials-welding@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thu, 30 December, 2010 9:00:24 PM
Subject: [MW:9023] reason for burnthrough defect

we got BT defect in smaw process welding using E6010 for root, and
E7018 for hotpass, capping. what could be the reason for this defect
and how we can avoid it.

thanks,
shankar

--
To post to this group, send email to materials-welding@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to materials-welding+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group's bolg at http://materials-welding.blogspot.com/
The views expressed/exchnaged in this group are members personel views and meant for educational purposes only, Users must take their own decisions w.r.t. applicable code/standard/contract documents.

Thursday, December 30, 2010

[MW:9031] Re: Technical solution

E7010 is readily available in the US from Lincoln, Esab, Hobart, and
others

On Dec 30, 6:53 am, pradip kumar sil <pradip...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> When we use GTAW , we are using ER-70S2/E-7018( Same tensile) combination,
> alternatively in SMAW , we are using E-6010/E-7018( Different tensile)
> instead of E-7010. E-7010 is not available(as per ASME) in the market. Is
> there any technical problem to manufacture it or to use it.
>
> Can somebody tell it.
>
> Regards
>
> Pradip

Re: [MW:9029] substitute AISI 4140 RC 28-32

Dear Mr. George

Please try 15 B 25

With Regards

Arijoy Roy

--- On Wed, 29/12/10, Tiny <gselburg@douglasdynamics.com> wrote:

From: Tiny <gselburg@douglasdynamics.com>
Subject: [MW:8996] substitute AISI 4140 RC 28-32
To: "Materials & Welding" <materials-welding@googlegroups.com>
Date: Wednesday, 29 December, 2010, 9:10 PM

All,

I am interested in substituting a 0.75" diameter rod made from AISI
4140 RC 28 - 32, with a material of comparable strength properties but
which is less sensitive to being welded, any information would be
appreciated.

Regards,

George Selburg Jr.
Sr Analysis Engineer
Douglas Dynamics, LLC; Western Products
7777 North 73rd Street
Milwaukee, WI 53223
Ph-414.362.3871; FAX-414.354.8448
email: gselburg@douglasdynamics.com

--
To post to this group, send email to materials-welding@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to materials-welding+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group's bolg at http://materials-welding.blogspot.com/
The views expressed/exchnaged in this group are members personel views and meant for educational purposes only, Users must take their own decisions w.r.t. applicable code/standard/contract documents.

Re: [MW:9026] RE: 9018] Stress Corrosion Cracking Test

Hi Elumali,

Thanks for quick feedback.

Yes, it is corrosion test and being done at laboratory having appropriate set up. But the question is that project specification requires it as per ASTM G 36 ,with cacl2 solution.

Request to provide more information, if available.
regards,
jignesh rana

----- Original Message -----
From: Sundaram Elumalai
To: materials-welding@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thu, 30 Dec 2010 17:06:10 +0530 (IST)
Subject: [MW:9021] RE: 9018] Stress Corrosion Cracking Test

Hi,

This is one corrosion test need to be done
at approved Lab. So you may check in your region, who is doing this test.

With Kind regards,

S.Elumalai.

From: materials-welding@googlegroups.com [mailto:materials-welding@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of jignesh.rana@Linde-LE.com

Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2010
1:45 PM

To: 'materials-welding@googlegroups.com'

Subject: [MW:9018] Stress
Corrosion Cracking Test

Dear Members,

One
of our project specification calls for Chloride Stress Corrosion Cracking as
the ASTM G 36 with CaCl2 (40%) solution for super Duplex Stainless steel ( S
32750)

ASTM
G- 36 is based on MgCl2 solution.

Does
any one having experience with SCCT with CaCl2 solution ?

With
Best Regards,

Jignesh R Rana

Manager - QA & QC

Linde Engineering India Pvt. Ltd.

38, Nutan Bharat Society, Alkapuri, Vadodara 390007, India

Tel.: +91 265 3056789, Fax: +91 265 2335213 , Mobil: +91 90999 86019

jignesh.rana@linde-le.com, www.linde-india.com

This e-mail is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please
notify us immediately. You should not disclose its contents to any other person
nor use it for any purposes.

--

To post to this group, send email to materials-welding@googlegroups.com

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to materials-welding+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

For more options, visit this group's bolg at http://materials-welding.blogspot.com/

The views expressed/exchnaged in this group are members personel views and
meant for educational purposes only, Users must take their own decisions w.r.t.
applicable code/standard/contract documents.

--

To post to this group, send email to materials-welding@googlegroups.com

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to materials-welding+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

For more options, visit this group's bolg at http://materials-welding.blogspot.com/

The views expressed/exchnaged in this group are members personel views and meant for educational purposes only, Users must take their own decisions w.r.t. applicable code/standard/contract documents.

Materials & Welding

Friday, December 31, 2010

RE: [MW:9045] Reason for Burn Through defect

RE: [MW:9044] Tempering Temp - IBR Cr-Mo Forged Steel valves

Re: [MW:9043] Tempering Temp - IBR Cr-Mo Forged Steel valves

Re: [MW:9040] Tempering Temp - IBR Cr-Mo Forged Steel valves

Re: [MW:9041] Technical solution

Re: [MW:9042] reason for burnthrough defect

[MW:9038] Re: 9027] Re: Stress Corrosion Cracking Test

RE: [MW:9039] Technical solution

[MW:9037] BT

Re: [MW:9035] Technical solution

Re: [MW:9036] Re: Technical solution

Re: [MW:9034] RE: 9018] Stress Corrosion Cracking Test

Re: [MW:9033] RE: 9027] Re: Stress Corrosion Cracking Test

[MW:9030] RE: 9027] Re: Stress Corrosion Cracking Test

Re: [MW:9032] reason for burnthrough defect

Thursday, December 30, 2010

[MW:9031] Re: Technical solution

Re: [MW:9029] substitute AISI 4140 RC 28-32

Re: [MW:9026] RE: 9018] Stress Corrosion Cracking Test

[MW:35346] Cast-iron welding

Search This Blog

Wikipedia

Followers