Issues Of Concern To ASME Boiler & Pressure

Vessel Committee TG On Creep-Strength

Enhanced Ferritic Steels, And Remedies Under
Consideration
IIW-AWS
J. F. Henry Technical Lectures
The Cr-Mo Steels
January/February 2006
 A Need For Comprehensive Rules
For This Class of Alloys

• Many Problems With Use Of Grade 91 With Existing

ASME Rules

• With The Advent Of The Next Generation Of Creep-

Strength Enhanced Ferritic Steels – Grades 23, 92,
911, 122, etc. – There Is A Clear Basis For Concern
That Problems Will Be Compounded In The Absence
Of Comprehensive, Technically Defensible And
Widely Accepted Sets of Rules

Lesson 6
IIW-AWS
January/February 2006
 SCII Task Group Considering The
Creep-Strength Enhanced Ferritic Steels

• A Section II (Materials) Task Group Has

Been Formed To Review Current Code
Rules Governing The Use Of The Creep-
Strength Enhanced Ferritic Steels And
Make Recommendations For Changes That
Will Control Their Use More Effectively

Lesson 6
IIW-AWS
January/February 2006
 Task Group Consists Of Industry Specialists In The
Development And Use Of The CSEF Steels And Includes
The Following:

• D. Canonico (Past Chmn - Main Committee, Exec. VP: Board of Pressure Vessel Technology
• K. Coleman (EPRI)
• J. Feldstein (Vice Chmn: Main Committee, Chmn:SC IX)
• P. Flenner (Consultant)
• D. Gandy (EPRI)
• M. Gold (Chmn: SC II)
• J. Henry (Alstom) - Chairman
• F. Masuyama (Professor, Alloy Developer)
• W. Newell (Euroweld)
• M. Praeger (MPC)
• B. Roberts (Consultant)
• W. Sperko (Consultant)
• R. Swindeman (ORNL)
• J. Tanzosh (B&W)
• J.C. Vaillant (V&M Tubing)

Lesson 6
IIW-AWS
January/February 2006
 Principal Attention On Safety Issues

• Primary Focus Of Task Group, Consistent With

Explicit Code Mission, Are Those Issues With
Obvious Safety Implications

• Since One Important Use For These Alloys Is

As Piping For The Main And Hot Reheat
Steamlines In Power Plants, Anything That
Potentially Affects Rupture Strength Or Weld
Integrity Is An Issue

Lesson 6
IIW-AWS
January/February 2006
 Quick Review of Basic Metallurgy

• CSEF Steels All Depend For Their Elevated

Temperature Strength On A Specific Condition Of
Microstructure

• The Precipitation Of Temper Resistant

Carbides/Carbo-Nitrides At Crystalline Defect Sites
Impedes Material Flow At Elevated Temperatures

• Anything That Disrupts This Structure, Reduces The

Strength And Stability Of The Alloys
Lesson 6
IIW-AWS
January/February 2006
 Issue 1: Intercritical Heat Treatment/
Overtempering/Undertempering

Problem: (a) ICHT – Coarsens, but does not fully dissolve, precipitates; “pinning”
effect is lost and “new” martensite has reduced high temperature
strength (strength drops to level of Grade 9)

b) Overtempering – Precipitates are coarsened, lath structure is destroyed,

rupture strength drops to Grade 9 level

c) Undertempering – More rapid recovery, brittle structure, SCC

susceptibility

Solution: (a) Impose Upper Temperature Limit On Tempering And PWHT To Avoid
ICHT And Overtempering
b) Review Minimum Tempering Limits
c) Prohibit Localized Heat Treatments If Temperature Exceeds AC1

Lesson 6
IIW-AWS
January/February 2006
The Effects Of Intercritical Heating

Lesson 6
IIW-AWS
January/February 2006
 Task Group Action
• Normalizing of Grades 91, 911, 23, 92, and 122: 1900-1975°F

• Tempering of Grades 91, 911, 23, 92, and 122: 1350-1470°F

• PWHT of Grades 91, 911, 23, 92, and 122: <1/2” 1325-1470°F
>1/2” 1350-1470°F

• Note: For DMWs, if the Chromium content of the filler material < 3%, or if
the filler material is an austenitic or nickel based material, then the minimum
tempering temperature remains 1300°F.

• For any component in which a portion of the component is heated above

1470°, the component must be re-normalized and tempered in its entirety, or as
an alternate, the heated portion can be removed from the component for re-
normalizing and tempering and replaced into the component.
Lesson 6
IIW-AWS
January/February 2006
 Issue 2: Post-Weld Heat Treatment

Problem: Some elements, such as Ni, depress both

A1 and A3 temperatures, and Ms and Mf
temperatures. Risk of either intercritical
heat treat damage or presence of
untempered martensite in weld metal (AWS
allows up to 1% Ni in weld metal vs 0.4%
max. in base metal specifications).
Solution: Modify PWHT requirement based on Ni
+ Mn Content.

Lesson 6
IIW-AWS
January/February 2006
Effect of Ni and Mn on A1 Temperature

Lesson 6
IIW-AWS
January/February 2006
 Task Group Action

• For P 5B, Group 2 Material (Only Grade 91, at Present)

• PWHT Temperature Range: 1350-1425 °F (730-775 °C)
• < 5“ thick: 1 hr/in, 30 min. minimum
• > 5” thick: 5 hr + 15 min for each inch over 5”
• For weld thickness < 0.5” , minimum PWHT temperature is 1325 °F
• If chemical composition of matching filler metal is known; the
maximum PWHT temperature can be increase as follows:
– If Ni + Mn < 1.50%, but > 1.0%, the max. PWHT temp. = 1450 °F (790 °C)
– If Ni + Mn < 1.0%, the max. PWHT temperature = 1470 °F (800 °C)

Lesson 6
IIW-AWS
January/February 2006
Task Group Action - PWHT

Lesson 6
IIW-AWS
January/February 2006
 Issue 3: Code Acceptance Of New Materials

Problem: The Code Does Not Specify Any Control Of The

Chemistry Of The Minimum of 3 Qualifying
Heats Relative To The Supplier’s Recommended
Ranges. For CSEF Steels, The Level Of
Precipitate-Forming Elements Is Critical To
Material Performance (Example of Grade 23)

Solution: (a) Require That Qualifying Heats Include A

“Rich” And “Lean” Heat
(b) Approve Chemistry Ranges Based Strictly On
Chemistries Of Qualifying Heats
(c) Insure Careful Review Of All Intentionally
Added Elements (e.g., Aluminum)
Lesson 6
IIW-AWS
January/February 2006
Grade 23 Chemistry Requirements

Element Compositional Limits, %

Carbon 0.04-0.10
Manganese 0.10-0.60
Phosphorus, max. 0.030
Sulfur, max. 0.010
Silicon, max. 0.50
Chromium 1.90-2.60
Molybdenum 0.05-0.30
Tungsten 1.45-1.75
Vanadium 0.20-0.30
Columbium 0.02-0.08
Nitrogen, max. 0.030
Aluminum, max. 0.030
Boron 0.0005-0.006

Lesson 6
IIW-AWS
January/February 2006
 Issue 4: Cold Work Effects On Creep-Rupture
Strength

Problem: The energy induced by cold work can destabilize

the structure, triggering more rapid
recovery/recrystallization, with loss of the desired
microstructure. Different alloys do not respond in
the same manner to the same level of cold work,
according to limited studies performed to date (e.g.
Grade 91 vs Grade 92).

Solution: Impose requirements for each alloy so that above a

certain level of cold strain, renormalizing and
tempering of the component is required. For
Grades 23 and 91, the level probably will be near
20% cold strain. (R/D  2.5)
Lesson 6
IIW-AWS
January/February 2006
 Effect of Cold-Work On Stress-Rupture Behavior Of Grade 91 Material
100.0
Imputed Mean For Grade 91 (<3 in.)
Imputed Mean For Grade 91 (>3 in.)
Imputed Minimum For Grade 91 (<3 in.)
Imputed Minimum For Grade 91 (>3 in.)
Grade 91-Base Metal (0%CW)
Grade 91-30%CW
Grade 91-20%CW
Grade 91-10%CW
Stress (ksi)

10.0

Note: Imputed Mean And Minimum Properties Are Calculated Based on ASME Maximum Allowable Stress
1.0
57.00 58.00 59.00 60.00 61.00 62.00 63.00 64.00 65.00 66.00 67.00 68.00 69.00
LMP=(T+460)(36+logt)/1000

Lesson 6
IIW-AWS
January/February 2006
 Issue 5: Control of Properties Through
Hardness Testing

Problem: A quick and inexpensive method for evaluating process

integrity is needed, and hardness testing is an obvious
tool that may provide an indication of the condition of
the material. However, there can be substantial
variability in portable hardness test results. Variables
include type of tester (e.g., rebound vs penetration), skill
of tester, surface decarburization, surface cold work,
intercritical heat treatment effects.

Solution: Impose “recommended” hardness limits that, if

exceeded, require additional testing (e.g., replication,
destructive sampling) to demonstrate integrity of the
processing. (Note that this does not address the issue of
intercritical heat treatment effects.)
Lesson 6
IIW-AWS
January/February 2006
 Issue 6: Stress-Corrosion Cracking

Problem: The 9-12% Cr CSEF Steels can be susceptible to

SCC in the fully hardened condition – a kind of
sensitization. Environment and composition are
factors of unknown (at this time) significance.

Solution: Impose limits on permissible time between

completion of welding or normalizing and
completion of PWHT or tempering. Or, require that
hardened component be maintained dry until
tempering/PWHT. Or, require NDE after completion
of tempering/PWHT to demonstrate freedom from
cracking (both OD and ID surfaces).
Lesson 6
IIW-AWS
January/February 2006
SCC in Grade 91 at Safe End Welds.

Lesson 6
IIW-AWS
January/February 2006
 Issue 7: Use of Tempering Parameter To
Control Processing of CSEF Steels

Problem: Accurate control of final properties can only be

achieved through the use of a tempering parameter.
The final microstructure is a function of total time
at temperatures (unless the critical limits are
exceeded.) However, optimum range of
parameters for each material have not been
definitively established.

Solution: Commission additional testing to identify optimum

parameter range for each material, and then impose
restrictions so that results of total processing fall
within that range for each material
Lesson 6
IIW-AWS
January/February 2006
 Issue 8: Integrity of Long-Term Creep-Rupture Data
Extrapolations for CSEF Steels

Problem: The creep-rupture behavior of the CSEF Steels

appears to be more sensitive to the effects of
temperature and stress within certain operating
ranges then “traditional” Cr-Mo steels, such as A1
Grade 22.
– Question of validity of the LM constant of 30-35 at
lower stresses
– Lowering of allowable stresses for certain grades
Solution: Continual re-evaluation of data as longer-term tests
are concluded to verify reasonableness of
extrapolations.

Lesson 6
IIW-AWS
January/February 2006
Major Reduction in Allowable Stresses for Grade
122 Based on Test Data Misinterpretation

Lesson 6
IIW-AWS
January/February 2006
 Issue 9: Elastic Follow-Up

Problem: The Mixing of CSEF Steels and “Traditional” Low

Alloy Steels in a Piping System Can Result in the
Application of a Non-Diminishing Secondary
Stress (sic) at Dissimilar Metal Joints, i.e. Elastic
Follow-Up.
Solution: a). Control Relative Proportion of CSEF Steels and
“Traditional” Low Alloy Steels That Can Be Used
in a Given Piping System.
b). Require that Secondary Stress Resulting from
Elastic Follow-Up Be Treated as a Primary Stress.

Lesson 6
IIW-AWS
January/February 2006
 Background Information

Main Steamline Piping: 18” (457mm) OD, Sch. 140 (1.562” (40mm) NWT);
SA-335, Grade 91 Material
Stop/Control Valve: 1.25Cr/1.0Mo/0.25V Material;
Thickness at Connection ~ 3” (~75 mm)
Filler Metal: 2-1/4Cr-1Mo (B3)

Design Outlet Steam Temp: 1050°F (565 °C)

Design Outlet Steam Press: 1800 psi (12.4 Mpa)

Total Hours of Service: < 5000

No Cold Spring Incorporated Into Piping System During Erection

Lesson 6
IIW-AWS
January/February 2006
Through-Wall Cracking Appearance on the
OD Surface of the Joint

Lesson 6
IIW-AWS
January/February 2006
Illustrating the Path of Fracture Along the
Weld Fusion Boundary

Lesson 6
IIW-AWS
January/February 2006
The Path of Fracture Through the
Decarburized Zone in the Weld Metal

Lesson 6
IIW-AWS
January/February 2006
Creep-Induced Cavitation and Microfissuring
Ahead of the Main Fracture

Lesson 6
IIW-AWS
January/February 2006
 Leitz Miniload Hardness Tester – 500 g

HARDNESS VALUES - HV

Quarter Point HAZ Carbon Depleted Zone Weld Metal

12 o’clock 296, 301, 301, 307 324, 324, 336 216, 219, 230
6 o’clock 290, 307, 301, 312, 318 336, 356 223, 237, 230

Lesson 6
IIW-AWS
January/February 2006
Original Joint Geometry

Lesson 6
IIW-AWS
January/February 2006
 Secondary Creep Strain Accumulation
1.E-01
Grade 91

1.E-02 Grade 22 & 1.25Cr-Mo-V

Grade 22, Decarb HAZ

1.E-03 Grade 22 - Exp Data
Creep rate (abs/h)

Grade 91 - Exp Data

1.E-04

1.E-05

1.E-06

1.E-07

1.E-08
1 10 100
Stress (ksi)

Illustrating Differences In The Rate Of Secondary Creep Strain

Accumulation Between Grades 91 And 22 At 1050ºF (565 ºC)
(Curve For Grade 91 Developed At Temperature of 1067ºF
(575ºC) - All Others At 1050ºF (565 ºC))
Lesson 6
IIW-AWS
January/February 2006
 Results Of Limited Structural Analysis

1. Root cause of cracking unidentified

2. Axial stress across decarburized zone a
significant factor
3. Piping support system satisfactory – primary and
secondary stresses below Code limits
4. Thermal transients played no significant role in
the failure
5. Effect of elastic follow-up (i.e., lack of significant
creep relaxation in Grade 91, following start-up)
likely critical in creating highly axial stress, and
requires further investigation
Lesson 6
IIW-AWS
January/February 2006