Anda di halaman 1dari 92

Repair and Replacement Applications Center:

Investigation of Thickness Limits for Post Weld Heat


Treatment (PWHT) Exemption

1013554

Effective December 6, 2006, this report has been made publicly available in accordance
with Section 734.3(b)(3) and published in accordance with Section 734.7 of the U.S. Export
Administration Regulations. As a result of this publication, this report is subject to only
copyright protection and does not require any license agreement from EPRI. This notice
supersedes the export control restrictions and any proprietary licensed material notices
embedded in the document prior to publication.
Repair and Replacement Applications Center:
Investigation of Thickness Limits for Post Weld Heat
Treatment (PWHT) Exemption
1013554

Technical Update, October 2006

EPRI Project Manager

A. McGehee

ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE


3420 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304-1395 PO Box 10412, Palo Alto, California 94303-0813 USA
800.313.3774 650.855.2121 askepri@epri.com www.epri.com
DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITIES
THIS DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED BY THE ORGANIZATION(S) NAMED BELOW AS AN ACCOUNT OF
WORK SPONSORED OR COSPONSORED BY THE ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE, INC. (EPRI).
NEITHER EPRI, ANY MEMBER OF EPRI, ANY COSPONSOR, THE ORGANIZATION(S) BELOW, NOR ANY
PERSON ACTING ON BEHALF OF ANY OF THEM:

(A) MAKES ANY WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION WHATSOEVER, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, (I) WITH
RESPECT TO THE USE OF ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEM
DISCLOSED IN THIS DOCUMENT, INCLUDING MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
PURPOSE, OR (II) THAT SUCH USE DOES NOT INFRINGE ON OR INTERFERE WITH PRIVATELY OWNED
RIGHTS, INCLUDING ANY PARTY'S INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, OR (III) THAT THIS DOCUMENT IS
SUITABLE TO ANY PARTICULAR USER'S CIRCUMSTANCE; OR

(B) ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY WHATSOEVER (INCLUDING
ANY CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF EPRI OR ANY EPRI REPRESENTATIVE HAS BEEN ADVISED
OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES) RESULTING FROM YOUR SELECTION OR USE OF THIS
DOCUMENT OR ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN
THIS DOCUMENT.

ORGANIZATION(S) THAT PREPARED THIS DOCUMENT

Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)

Flenner Engineering Services, LLC

This is an EPRI Technical Update report. A Technical Update report is intended as an informal report of
continuing research, a meeting, or a topical study. It is not a final EPRI technical report.

NOTE
For further information about EPRI, call the EPRI Customer Assistance Center at 800.313.3774 or
e-mail askepri@epri.com.

Electric Power Research Institute and EPRI are registered service marks of the Electric Power
Research Institute, Inc.

Copyright 2006 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
CITATIONS
This document was prepared by
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)
Repair and Replacement Applications Center (RRAC)
1300 Harris Blvd
Charlotte, NC 28262
Principal Investigator
A. McGehee
Flenner Engineering Services, LLC
6537 Wyndham Drive
Kalamazoo, MI 49009
Principal Investigator
P. Flenner
This document describes research sponsored by EPRI .
The publication is a corporate document that should be cited in the literature in the following
manner:
Repair and Replacement Applications Center: Investigation of Thickness Limits for Post Weld
Heat Treatment (PWHT) Exemption. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2006. 1013554.

iii
ABSTRACT
Recent work in the Repair Replacement Applications Center (RRAC) and the Fossil Materials
and Repair program (P87) has been directed toward helping eliminate inconsistencies in the
various code bodies dealing with the appropriate thickness limits for PWHT exemption in P No.1
materials. A review of the basis for the currently accepted thickness limits where PWHT is
required in P No.1 P No.5A materials has been undertaken. While the current exemption
thickness limits follows good historical engineering practice, it is believed that they may be
overly conservative or restrictive in some cases. This document provides some technical insight
as to what thickness limits should be acceptable based on the results of hardenability tests and
various mechanical testing. The goal of this project is to develop criteria around PWHT
exemption thickness limits that are technically justified. This in turn will help in establishing and
writing rules which can be applicable to all ASME materials.

v
CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................1-1
1.1 Background ..............................................................................................................1-1
1.1.1 Current Code Rules............................................................................................1-2

2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .....................................................................................................2-1


2.1 Test Materials...........................................................................................................2-1
2.1.1 Effect of Hardenability ........................................................................................2-2
2.1.2 Base Materials....................................................................................................2-2
2.1.3 Machining of Base Metal Thicknesses ...............................................................2-8
2.1.4 Welding & Materials ...........................................................................................2-9
2.2 Testing....................................................................................................................2-11
2.2.1 Hardenability Testing........................................................................................2-11
2.2.2 Hardness Testing .............................................................................................2-11
2.2.3 Tensile Testing .................................................................................................2-12
2.2.4 Charpy Impact Testing .....................................................................................2-13
2.2.5 Side Bend Testing ...........................................................................................2-13
2.2.6 Low Cycle Fatigue Testing ..............................................................................2-13

3 RESULTS ...............................................................................................................................3-1
3.1 Hardenability Testing Results...................................................................................3-1
3.1.1 Individual Results ...............................................................................................3-1
3.1.2 Hardenability Results Summary .........................................................................3-1
3.2 Hardness Testing Results ........................................................................................3-3
3.2.1 Individual Results: P1 SA-516 Grade 70.........................................................3-3
3.2.2 Individual Results: P1 SA-515 Grade 70.........................................................3-7
3.2.3 Individual Results: P3 SA-204 Grade C ........................................................3-10
3.2.4 Individual Results: P No.4 SA-387 Grade 11 Class 2 ...................................3-13
3.2.5 Individual Results: P No.5A SA-387 Grade 22 Class 1.................................3-16
3.2.6 Hardness Testing Summary.............................................................................3-20
3.3 Tensile Testing Results ..........................................................................................3-22
3.3.1 Tensile Testing Summary.................................................................................3-23
3.4 Charpy Impact Testing Results ..............................................................................3-25
3.4.1 CVN Testing Summary.....................................................................................3-26
3.5 Side Bend Testing Results .....................................................................................3-27
3.6 Low Cycle Fatigue Testing Results ........................................................................3-27

4 CONCLUSIONS .....................................................................................................................4-1
4.1 Hardenability & Mechanical Results.........................................................................4-1
4.1.1 Welding Thicker Sections - Summary ................................................................4-2
4.2 Criteria for PWHT Exemption Thickness..................................................................4-3

vii
5 FUTURE WORK .....................................................................................................................5-1
5.1 Additional Testing.....................................................................................................5-1
5.2 Code Support ...........................................................................................................5-1

6 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................6-1

A CERTIFIED MATERIAL TEST REPORTS ........................................................................... A-1

B HARDENABILITY CURVES ................................................................................................. B-1

viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2-1 Weld Joint Geometry and typical sequencing ....................................................................2-10

Figure 2-2 Bead on plate deposition....................................................................................................2-10

Figure 2-3 Cross section of welded plate showing locations of hardness traverses...........................2-12

Figure 2-4 Cross sections of bead on plate depositions and hardness traverse locations. (A) 1 bead 1
layer, (B) 3 beads wide 2 layers, (C) 4 beads wide three layers........................................2-12

Figure 3-1 Graph showing all evaluated materials Jominy results. .......................................................3-2

Figure 3-2 SA-516-70 Hardness Traverse Results of the bead on thick plate depositions. ............3-4

Figure 3-3 SA-516-70 Hardness Traverse Results of the bead on 1 thick plate depositions. ..........3-5

Figure 3-4 SA-516-70 Average Hardness Traverse Results of and 1 thick welded plate...........3-6

Figure 3-5 SA-515-70 Hardness Traverse Results of bead on 1 thick plate depositions. ..............3-8

Figure 3-6 SA-515-70 Average Hardness Traverse Results for the , and 1 thick
welded plate. ........................................................................................................................3-9

Figure 3-7 SA-204-C Hardness Traverse Results of bead on 1 thick plate depositions...............3-11

Figure 3-8 SA-204-C Average Hardness Traverse Results for the , and 1 thick
welded plate. ......................................................................................................................3-12

Figure 3-9 SA-387-11 Class 2 Hardness Traverse Results of bead on thick plate depositions ....3-13

Figure 3-10 SA-387-11 Class 2 Hardness Traverse Results of bead on thick plate depositions. ...3-14

Figure 3-11 SA-387-11 Class 2 Hardness Traverse Results of bead on 1 thick plate depositions ..3-14

Figure 3-12 SA-387-11 Class 2 Average Hardness Traverse Results of , , and 1 thick
welded plate. ......................................................................................................................3-15

Figure 3-13 SA-387-22 Class 1 Hardness Traverse Results of bead on thick plate depositions. ...3-17

Figure 3-14 SA-387-22 Class 1 Hardness Traverse Results of bead on thick plate depositions. ...3-17

Figure 3-15 SA-387-22 Class 1 Hardness Traverse Results of bead on 1 thick plate depositions ..3-18

Figure 3-16 SA-387-22 Class 1 Average Hardness Traverse Results of , and 1 thick
welded plate. ......................................................................................................................3-19

Figure 3-17 Tensile Test specimen configuration..................................................................................3-22

Figure 3-18 Tested tensile sample for the 1 thick (top) and the thick (bottom) SA-516-70
weld plate. ..........................................................................................................................3-24

Figure 3-19 Tested tensile sample for the 1 thick SA-387-22 Cl 1 weld plate. .................................3-24

ix
Figure 3-20 Side view of specimen removal and notch placement for HAZ CVN samples. .................3-25

Figure 3-21 Example of test specimen for LCF specimens...................................................................3-28

Figure 3-22: Graphical results of the LCF testing for the SA515-70 material.........................................3-30

Figure 3-23: Graphical results of the LCF testing for the SA516-70 material.........................................3-30

Figure 3-24: Graphical results of the LCF testing for the SA204-C material. .........................................3-31

Figure 3-25: Graphical results of the LCF testing for the SA387-11 material.........................................3-31

Figure 3-26: Graphical results of the LCF testing for the SA387-22 material. Circled points indicate
defects present on the fracture surface..............................................................................3-32

Figure 3-27 Examples of defects on the fracture surface causing premature failure in the SA387-11
cross weld LCF samples. ...................................................................................................3-33

x
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1 Chemical Requirements for SA-516-70 vs. Ht# C4843 .......................................................2-3

Table 2-2 Mechanical Requirements for SA-516-70 vs. Ht# C4843 ....................................................2-4

Table 2-3 Chemical Requirements for SA-515-70 vs. Ht# U2739 .......................................................2-4

Table 2-4 Mechanical Requirements for SA-515-70 vs. Ht# U2739 ....................................................2-5

Table 2-5 Chemical Requirements for SA-204-C vs. Ht#62973...........................................................2-5

Table 2-6 Mechanical Requirements for SA-204-C vs. Ht# 62973 ......................................................2-6

Table 2-7 Chemical Requirements for SA-387-11 Cl 2 vs. Ht#524835.............................................2-6

Table 2-8 Mechanical Requirements for SA-387-11-Cl 2 vs. Ht# 524835 ...........................................2-7

Table 2-9 Chemical Requirements for SA-387-22- Cl 1 vs. Ht#527078 ..............................................2-7

Table 2-10 Mechanical Requirements for SA-387-22-Cl 1 vs. Ht# 527078 ...........................................2-8

Table 2-11 Table of current (2004) exemption thicknesses to PWHT for various codes.......................2-8

Table 2-12 Welding Information .............................................................................................................2-9

Table 3-1 Approximate cooling rates for end quench test bar locations ..............................................3-1

Table 3-2 Hardness Summary of Bead on Plate and Full Weld Plates for SA-516-70 ........................3-7

Table 3-3 Hardness Summary of Bead on Plate and Full Weld Plates for SA-515-70 ......................3-10

Table 3-4 Hardness Summary of Bead on Plate and Full Weld Plates for SA-204-C........................3-13

Table 3-5 Hardness Summary of Bead on Plate and Full Weld Plates for SA-387-11 ......................3-16

Table 3-6 Hardness Summary of Bead on Plate and Full Weld Plates for SA-387-22 ......................3-20

Table 3-7 Tensile Test Results...........................................................................................................3-23

Table 3-8 CVN test results (average of three tests) ...........................................................................3-26

Table 3-9 Side bend test results.........................................................................................................3-27

Table 3-10 LCF Test Results................................................................................................................3-29

Table 4-1 Comparison of the Average Maximum Hardness & Carbon Equivalents for , , and
1 Full Thickness Welds ....................................................................................................4-2

xi
1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
The various Codes used in the power industry have significant differences in the definitions of
what thickness to use for the determination of the requirement for post weld heat treatment
(PWHT). These differences include whether to use the weld thickness or the material thickness
and if it should be the thicker or the thinner material. It has not always been clear why some of
the differences exist other than the obvious reason the different committees write different rules.
There have been two basic reasons given for the need to do PWHT [1]. One is to lower the level
of residual stress and the second is to reduce the excessive hardness that may occur in hardenable
materials in the weld and heat affected zone (HAZ) that could possibly deteriorate the cross-weld
mechanical properties.
The need to reduce residual stress is usually a result of a concern for corrosion or for fatigue.
Severe corrosion applications may require additional or special heat treatments beyond the
requirements of the codes. These additional heat treatments would be specified as part of the
materials design and would be selected by the engineer. Similarly, the engineer may select
additional or specific heat treatments for systems or components that may be subject to extreme
cyclic loading. PWHT can be used reduce residual stresses to an acceptable level. Residual
stresses are related more to restraint and welding techniques than to material thickness.
Fatigue problems are not only a result of varying stress levels (with the potential contribution of
residual stresses) but also of material differences (i.e. coefficients of thermal expansion). As a
result the hardness differences at the weld and HAZ compared to the base material can in some
cases contribute to fatigue strength reductions. The hardness in the HAZ is a function of the
metallurgical structure in hardenable materials such as the amount of untempered martensite.
Normal subcritical PWHT is intended to temper the hardened material which reduces the
differences in material hardness across the weld. It also results in more favorable structures that
are more resistant to corrosion and often can result in better toughness.
The choice of alloys is usually made to address issues such as corrosion resistance, strength,
toughness, weldability, wear resistance, and other mechanical properties. However, since the
alloy affects the degree of hardness in the weld and the HAZ, the exemption thickness is reduced
as the perceived hardenability increases. The Codes use the weldability numbers (P Nos.) from
ASME Section IX as the basis for changing the exemption thickness, even though it may not be
the best criteria as there may be a wide range of hardenability within a single P No.
Nevertheless, the P Nos. are in part based on the alloy composition and were selected as the basis
for defining the PWHT requirements in the Codes.
The degree of hardness in the weld and HAZ is related to the cooling rate, particularly as the
phase transformations are occurring, and to the alloy of the materials. The cooling rate at the
weld is related to the heat input, technique, thermal conductivity, the temperature during welding
(preheat and interpass temperatures), and to the heat sink provided by the material. This heat

1-1
sink is directly related to the thickness of the material, with greater material thicknesses
providing a greater heat sink. It is this thickness that this report addresses, referred to as the
exemption thickness.
As stated earlier, the Codes may use either weld thickness or the base material thickness as the
basis for exempting PWHT. In full penetration butt welded circumferential or longitudinal
joints, the weld thickness is taken to be identical with the base material thickness at the weld.
The base material thickness therefore controls the PWHT requirement for these welds. Since the
exemption thickness addressed in this report is the material thickness, the weld thickness has not
been used as a criterion for exemption even though it may be used in the Codes for certain joint
configurations.

1.1.1 Current Code Rules


Following are the specific rules of various Codes regarding PWHT for the materials covered in
this report. The materials investigated and their ASME Section IX assigned P Nos. were:
SA-515 Grade 70 P No. 1, Group 2
SA-516 Grade 70 P No. 1, Group 2
SA-204 Grade C P No. 3, Group 2
SA-387 Grade 11, Class 2 P No.4, Group 1
SA-387 Grade 22, Class 1 P No.5A, Group 1
Some of these materials are not permitted by one or more of the following Codes. The PWHT of
the material is still listed but the application restriction is noted. Some of the Codes also have
extensive exemptions based on conditions other than the thickness of the materials, such as weld
types or specific applications and configurations. The configuration assumed for this analysis is
a full penetration circumferential or longitudinal butt weld between pressure containing
components.

1.1.1.1 ASME Section I, Power Boilers


The exemption thickness is the lesser of the weld thickness or the thinner material thickness
for all materials. It would apply to the pressure retaining material for attachment welds.
There are also additional alloy limitations and preheat requirements listed in order to use the
exemption. The alloy limitations and the type of weld exceptions did not necessarily apply to
the test welds, based on the actual chemical composition of the materials as recorded on the
material test reports. The exemption thicknesses for the listed materials are:
P No. 1 PWHT not required for thicknesses inches.
P No. 3 The exemption for Groups 1 & 2 materials applies for thicknesses
inches
P No. 4 PWHT not required for thicknesses inches.
P No. 5A PWHT not required for thicknesses inches.

1-2
1.1.1.2 ASME Section III, Subsections NB and NC, Rules for Construction of
Nuclear Facility Components
The exemption thickness is the lesser of the weld thickness, the thickness of the pressure
retaining material for a structural attachment weld, or the thinner material thickness between
pressure retaining materials. Some additional exceptions to the PWHT requirement apply for
certain types of welds. There are also additional alloy limitations and preheat requirements
listed in order to use the exemption. However the alloy limitations and the type of weld
exceptions did not apply to the test welds.
The exemption thicknesses for the listed materials are:
P No. 1 PWHT not required for thicknesses 1 inches.
P No. 3 The exemption for Groups 1 & 2 materials applies for thicknesses
inches.
P No. 4 PWHT not required for thicknesses inches.
P No. 5A PWHT not required for thicknesses inches.

1.1.1.3 ASME Section VIII, Div. 1, Pressure Vessels


The exemption thickness is the lesser of the weld thickness, the thickness of the pressure
retaining material for a structural attachment weld, or the thinner material thickness between
pressure retaining materials. Some additional exceptions to the PWHT requirement apply for
certain types of welds. There are also additional alloy limitations, preheat requirements, and
welding procedure qualification requirements listed in order to use the exemption. However
the alloy limitations and the type of weld exceptions did not apply to the test welds, based on
the actual chemical composition of the materials as recorded on the material test reports.
The exemption thicknesses for the listed materials are:
P No.1 PWHT not required for thicknesses 1 inches.
P No.3 The exemption for Groups 1 & 2 materials applies for thicknesses
inches.
P No. 4 PWHT not required for thicknesses inches.
P No. 5A PWHT not required for thicknesses inches.

1.1.1.4 ASME B31.1, Power Piping


The exemption thickness is the lesser of the weld thickness or the greater material thickness
for P Nos. 1 and 3 only. For P Nos. 4 and 5A, the exemption thickness is the greater
material thickness. Some additional exceptions to the PWHT requirement apply for certain
types of welds.
There are also additional alloy limitations and preheat requirements listed in order to use the
exemptions. However the alloy limitations and the type of weld exceptions did not apply to
the test welds.
The exemption thicknesses for the listed materials are:
P No. 1 PWHT not required for thicknesses inches.

1-3
P No. 3 The exemption for Groups 1 & 2 materials applies for thicknesses
inches.
P No. 4 PWHT not required for thicknesses inches.
P No. 5A PWHT not required for thicknesses inches.

1.1.1.5 ASME B31.3, Process Piping


The exemption thickness is the greater material thickness for all materials. Some additional
exceptions to the PWHT requirement apply for certain types of welds. There are also
additional alloy limitations and preheat requirements listed in order to use the exemptions.
However the alloy limitations and the type of weld exceptions did not apply to the test welds.
B31.3 also has tensile strength criteria for determination of the PWHT exemption in P Nos. 3
and 4 materials. These criteria would have resulted in required PWHT for both the P Nos. 3
and 4 materials used in this study.
The exemption thicknesses for the listed materials are:
P No. 1 PWHT not required for thicknesses inches.
P No. 3 The exemption applies for thicknesses inches.
P No. 4 PWHT not required for thicknesses inches.
P No. 5A PWHT not required for thicknesses inches.

1-4
2
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This project was developed in an attempt to understand the effect of welding various thicknesses
of materials commonly utilized in power plants today. In doing so there could then be reasoning
or technical justification incorporated which allow code members to more accurately write rules
for exempting or requiring PWHT. It is expected that this document will be a living document
that will serve as an amendable publication for the collection of examinations and test results that
have been conducted to date on various materials. It is possible that the results of future
investigations may yield data that influence the recommendations developed in this work.
Recommendations from industry experts working with various code bodies is both encouraged
and required for this project so that discrepancies to code issues can be resolved. This work is a
culmination of the efforts undertaken to address some of the questions that have arisen to more
accurately define the rules that are currently in place for determination of thickness limit
exemptions to PWHT. The goal is to provide data needed that identifies what limit can be
tolerated for PWHT exemption while maintaining the safe and reliable operation of the welded
component once it is placed into service. The recommendations developed in this project are
based on tests performed from some of the most commonly utilized materials from the P Nos.1,
3, 4 and 5A groups and is not all encompassing. Efforts are aimed at developing criteria from the
data gathered which will then be used to establish the thickness to which PWHT can be
exempted for other materials within the same P number. The materials investigated to date and
their descriptions are discussed in the following section.

2.1 Test Materials


The groupings (P numbers) of ASME materials are categorized in an attempt to segregate
materials into sets of like materials that have similar chemical, metallurgical, compositional, and
mechanical property characteristics for the primary purpose of delineating the material
weldability. The intent in doing so then allows rules to be administered that apply to sets of
materials instead of writing specific rules for each individual engineering material that is allowed
for use. While this is necessary for administrative reasons the applicability of the rules to every
material contained within the set may not be appropriate due to the increasing number of
materials that are contained within each set. This has the tendency to promote rules which are
overly conservative for some of the materials in the group. For instance, in ASME Section XI,
underwater welding rules use a carbon equivalent (CE) to determine what material can be
utilized for weld qualification. If the exact chemistry of the material to be welded is unknown
then an adder for the hardenability elements is utilized to calculate the CE. The problem is that
when the adder is utilized to represent the unknown elements, the CE can become unrealistically
high for some grades of materials identified. This can make it difficult, if not impossible to locate
and purchase the material needed to qualify a welding procedure [2].
Previous work in the exemption thickness area had been focused primarily on the P No.1
materials where hardenability properties were expected to be minimal. EPRI report 1008277

2-1
PWHT Exemptions for Low Hardenability Materials,[3] discussed the discrepancies between the
various code bodies (Section III, VIII) that allowed PWHT exemptions in P No.1 materials up to
1 inch thick to those that previously limited the exemption to inch and below ( B31.1, B31.3,
Sect I). This project not only investigates the appropriate limits for the P No.1 materials but also
investigates P Nos. 3, 4 and 5A which have increasing alloy content. This investigation
includes the effect of varying thicknesses, and the effect of increases in the alloy content
with the resulting effect on the weldability of the base material. Specifically this report
includes the effects on the mechanical behavior of the base metals following welding and
left in the as welded condition.

2.1.1 Effect of Hardenability


The importance of hardenability on the determination of materials weldability is well known.
The correlation between increased hardenability and susceptibility to hydrogen assisted cracking
is well documented in the literature. It is critical to understand and differentiate the distinctions
between hardenability and hardness when studying the affects of welding various thicknesses of
materials. Hardenability is defined as the relative ability of a ferrous alloy to form martensite
when quenched from a temperature above the upper critical temperature. It is gauged by
measuring the depth or distance from the quenched surface to which a specified hardness level
(50Rc for example) or percent martensite is maintained. Hardness is just the means by which to
determine the hardenability. It is quite possible that a material with a lower maximum hardness
could have a greater hardenability than a material with a higher maximum hardness and vice
versa. For example if one wanted to increase the hardenability of a certain material it could be
done without increasing the maximum hardness attained at the quenched end through selective
alloying additions (most commonly one or more combinations of C, Mn, Si, Cr, Mo, Ni, V ). If,
however, the increase in hardenability was achieved through carbon additions then the maximum
hardness would change at the quenched end as carbon is the only element addition which drives
maximum attainable hardness in steels. Carbon content can also significantly affect the quench
rate required to produce martensitic structures. Lower carbon variations of the same alloy
compositions require faster quench rates to achieve the same hardenability characteristics. These
are increasingly important points to understand especially when dealing with higher strength
steels contained within the P No.1 through P No.5A classifications and their mechanical
properties following welding. A value which is often useful in the determination of
hardenability is the carbon equivalent (CE). The CE formula most often used in ASME
applications is given below. A calculated CE based on the specification limits is often
significantly higher than that calculated using actual values from the CMTR. While it is
potentially possible to have chemistries for these materials that reach the maximum limited by
the specification, it would be the exception for this to occur in the typical steel mill
manufacturing philosophy.
CE = C + [(Si + Mn) 6] + [(Cr + Mo + V) 5] + [(Ni + Cu) 15]

2.1.2 Base Materials


Five materials have been selected thus far based on their frequency of use in the power industry.
Two P No. 1 materials, One P No. 3 materials, One P No. 4 and One P No. 5A were selected all

2-2
in plate form. Materials representing a certain chemical composition were sought which would
fall within the mid to upper chemistry ranges (i.e. strength levels) for each P number material.
This was desired so that the affects of welding various thicknesses could be studied on materials
which were toward the higher alloy / hardenability range for the P number represented. The
results of the testing would then be characteristic of the higher alloyed materials for the
classifications studied which would represent the worst case scenario, or rather provide the best
opportunity for the mechanical behavior to be adversely affected by omitting a PWHT. It should
be mentioned that there are virtually infinite compositional ranges possible depending on
manufacturing process and manufacturer preference associated with each of the materials listed
in each P number. The material selection for the project was also restricted to materials which
were available in plate product forms. This was done so that the fabricability of test coupons
could be easily achieved. Every effort was made to acquire frequently utilized material which
would be representative of the worst case results for welding thicker sections without PWHT.

2.1.2.1 P No.1 SA-516 Grade 70


SA-516 grade 70 was selected as a representative material for P No.1. Manufacturers commonly
produce this material to a dual certified grade of 60/70. The grade 70 represents the P No.1,
Group 2 classification. The specification requires plates that are over 1 inch thick be
normalized. Plates equal to and under 1 inch thick are normally supplied in the as rolled
condition but can be supplied in the normalized condition. The chemical and mechanical
information from the certified material test report (CMTR) for the specific heat of material
utilized in this project is given in Tables 2-1 and 2-2 below with the actual MTR listed in the
appendix.

Table 2-1
Chemical Requirements for SA-516-70 vs. Ht# C4843

Element C Mn P S Si Cu Ni Cr Mo V Ti B
HT#C4843 0.20 1.04 0.007 0.001 0.38 0.08 0.05 0.08 0.01 0.001 0.003 0.0002

SA-516-70 0.28 0.85 0.035 0.035 0.15- NS NS NS NS NS NS NS


1.20 0.40

NOTE: Single values listed for the specification are maximums. Heat Analysis.

As can be seen in the data given in Table 2-1 there are elements included on the CMTR that are
not part of the original specification. This material specification does allow additional alloying
with chemistry limitations on unspecified elements that are contained within SA-20 which could
increase the maximum potential CE of the specification by up to 0.12%. There is a trace of
Boron which can be added in small amounts (0.001%) to increase the hardenability. Other
elements present can be found in the carbon equivalent (CE) formula used for these materials.
Therefore they contribute, to some degree, to increasing the hardenability of the material.
Plugging in the chemistry from the CMTR the CE = 0.46. The maximum CE for the
specification utilizing the maximum chemistry limits from the spec is CE = 0.55. This specific
heat of material is representative of a higher CE for the specification range of this material.

2-3
Table 2-2
Mechanical Requirements for SA-516-70 vs. Ht# C4843

Tensile Strength 0.2% Yield Strength % Elongation


(ksi) (ksi) in 2 inches
HT# C4843 74.6 46.3 29.0
SA-516-70 70 90 38 min 21

The mechanical results meet the requirements for the specification. The plate was normalized at
the mill so higher strengths could have been expected if it had been delivered in the as rolled
condition.

2.1.2.2 P No.1 SA-515 Grade 70


SA-515 grade 70 was selected as a representative material for P No.1. The grade 70 represents
the P No.1, Group 2 classification. The specification states that plates that are 2 inches thick
are typically supplied in the as rolled condition which is coarse grained. Plates can be ordered
normalized or stress relieved, or both. Plates > 2 inches thick must be normalized. This material
was selected to provide a comparison to the SA516-70 which had an increase in carbon content
and alloying as well as a coarse grained microstructure. The chemical and mechanical
information from the certified material test report (CMTR) for the specific heat of material
utilized in this project is given in Tables 2-3 and 2-4 below with the actual MTR listed in the
appendix.

Table 2-3
Chemical Requirements for SA-515-70 vs. Ht# U2739

Element C Mn P S Si Cu Ni Cr Mo V Ti Al
HT#U2739 0.26 0.64 0.009 0.009 0.22 0.32 0.25 0.11 0.07 0.001 0.001 0.003

SA-515-70 0.33 1.20/ 0.035 0.035 0.13- NS NS NS NS NS NS NS


1.30* 0.45**

NOTE: Single values listed for the specification are maximums.


* denotes first number heat analysis / second number product analysis maximums for the specification.
** denotes Product range

As can be seen in the data given in Table 2-3 there are elements included on the CMTR that are
not part of the original specification but, this material specification does allow additional
alloying with chemistry limitations on unspecified elements that are contained within SA-20
which could increase the maximum potential CE of the specification by up to 0.12%.. Other
elements present can be found in the carbon equivalent (CE) formula used for these materials.
Therefore they contribute, to some degree, to increasing the hardenability of the material.

2-4
Plugging in the chemistry from the CMTR the CE = 0.47. The maximum CE for the
specification utilizing the maximum chemistry limits from the spec is CE = 0.62. This specific
heat of material is representative of a higher CE for the specification range of this material.

Table 2-4
Mechanical Requirements for SA-515-70 vs. Ht# U2739

Tensile Strength 0.2% Yield Strength % Elongation


(ksi) (ksi) in 2 inches
HT# U2739 80.5 46.3 22.0
SA-515-70 70 90 38 min 21

The mechanical results meet the requirements for the specification..

2.1.2.3 P No.3 SA-204 Grade C


SA-204 Grade C was selected as a representative material for P No.3. This material can be
produced to three classes or strength levels (A, B or C). This alloy is listed as a P No.3 Group 2
material. The specification requires all plates to be normalized that are > 1.5 inches thick. Plates
1.5 inches may be normalized or stress relieved or both. This specific heat of material was
normalized at the mill. The chemical and mechanical information from the certified material test
report (CMTR) for the specific heat of material utilized in this project is given in Table 2-4 and
2-5 below with the actual MTR listed in the appendix.

Table 2-5
Chemical Requirements for SA-204-C vs. Ht#62973

Element C Mn P S Si Cu Ni Cr Mo V Cb
HT#62973 0.20 0.870 0.011 0.0006 0.314 0.189 0.114 0.115 0.511 0.003 0.002

SA-204-C 0.26 0.90 0.035 0.035 0.15- NS 0.40- NS 0.45- NS NS


0.40 0.70 0.60

Note: Single values listed for the specification are maximums. Heat Analysis

As can be seen in the data given in Table 2-5 chromium, copper and vanadium are included on
the CMTR but are not required by the original specification but, this material specification does
allow additional alloying with chemistry limitations on unspecified elements that are contained
within SA-20 which could increase the maximum potential CE of the specification by up to
0.12%. Other elements present can be found in the carbon equivalent (CE) formula used for
these materials.
Plugging in the chemistry from the CMTR the CE = 0.54. The maximum CE for the
specification utilizing the maximum chemistry limits from the spec is CE = 0.64. The specific
heat of material used for the investigation is near the upper limits of the CE of the specification
range for this material.

2-5
Table 2-6
Mechanical Requirements for SA-204-C vs. Ht# 62973

Tensile Strength 0.2% Yield Strength % Elongation


(ksi) (ksi) in 2 inches
HT# 62973 81.1 59.2 22.0
SA-204-C 75 - 95 43 min 20.0

The mechanical results meet the requirements for the specification. The plate was normalized at
the mill.

2.1.2.4 P No.4 SA-387-11 Class 2


SA-387 Grade 11 was selected as a representative material for the P No.4 Group 1 classification.
Plate material was used so that welding geometries and test samples could be removed easily. In
industry the most common product form for this material will be in piping (SA-335) or tubing
(SA-213). The chemical specification for those product forms are typically lower in maximum
alloy limits as compared with the plate specification, with the exception of higher silicon allowed
in the tube and pipe specifications. The carbon allowable is higher in the plate spec which allows
for a potentially harder as quenched hardness in the plate product. The plate product therefore
takes advantage of increased alloying potential which would be conservative to the maximum
piping and tube specifications. The plate specification requires the final product to be delivered
in the fully annealed condition or normalized and tempered. The piping and tube specifications
follow the same requirements for the heat treatment of the finished product. The chemical and
mechanical information from the certified material test report (CMTR) for the specific heat of
material utilized in this project is given in Table 2-7 and 2-8 below with the actual MTR listed in
the appendix.

Table 2-7
Chemical Requirements for SA-387-11 Cl 2 vs. Ht#524835

Element C Mn P S Si Cu Ni Cr Mo V
HT#C524835 0.15 0.57 0.010 0.007 0.51 0.17 0.120 1.09 0.47 0.005

SA-387-11- 0.05 0.40 0.035 0.035 0.50- NS NS 1.00- 0.45- NS


Cl2 0.17 0.65 0.80 1.50 0.60

NOTE: Single values listed for the specification are maximums. Heat Analysis.

As can be seen in the data given in Table 2-7 Cu, Ni and V are included on the CMTR but are
not required by the specification. Other elements present can be found in the carbon equivalent
(CE) formula used for these materials. The Cu, Ni and V contribute to the CE determination and
the hardenability.
Plugging in the chemistry from the CMTR the CE = 0.66. The maximum CE for the
specification utilizing the maximum chemistry limits from the spec is CE = 0.83. The specific

2-6
heat of material used for the investigation is above the average CE of the specification range for
this material.

Table 2-8
Mechanical Requirements for SA-387-11-Cl 2 vs. Ht# 524835

Tensile Strength 0.2% Yield Strength % Elongation


(ksi) (ksi) in 8 inches
HT# 524835 80.1 60.0 23.8
SA-387-11-Cl 2 75 - 100 45 min 18.0

The mechanical results meet the requirements for the specification. The plate was normalized
and tempered at the mill.

2.1.2.5 P No.5A SA-387-22 Class 1


SA-387 Grade 22 was selected as a representative material for the P No.5A Group 1
classification. Plate material was used so that welding geometries and test samples could be
removed consistently. In industry the most common product form for this material will be in
piping (SA-335) or tubing (SA-213). The chemical specifications for those product forms are
very similar in alloy limits as compared with the plate specification with the exception of slightly
higher (0.1%) Cr and (0.03%) Mo allowed by the tube and pipe specifications. The plate
specification allows the final product to be delivered without normalization and temper heat
treatment but requires annealing or stress relief prior to shipping. The piping and tube
specifications follow the same requirements for the heat treatment of the finished product. The
chemical and mechanical information from the certified material test report (CMTR) for the
specific heat of material utilized in this project is given in Table 2-9 and 2-10 below with the
actual MTR listed in the appendix.

Table 2-9
Chemical Requirements for SA-387-22- Cl 1 vs. Ht#527078

Element C Mn P S Si Cu Ni Cr Mo V
HT#C527078 0.12 0.52 0.010 0.006 0.33 0.15 0.107 2.06 0.92 0.009

SA-387-22- Cl 0.05 0.30 0.035 0.035 0.50 NS NS 2.00- 0.90- NS


1 0.15 0.60 2.50 1.10

NOTE: Single values listed for the specification are maximums. Heat Analysis.

As can be seen in the data given in Table 2-9 Cu, Ni and V are included on the CMTR but are
not required by the specification. Other elements present can be found in the carbon equivalent
(CE) formula used for these materials. The Cu, Ni and V contribute to the CE determination and
the hardenability.

2-7
Plugging in the chemistry from the CMTR the CE = 0.88. The maximum CE for the
specification utilizing the maximum chemistry limits from the spec is CE = 1.05. This material
represents the highest potential CE for the project. The high CE that is possible for the grade 22
reveals the higher amount of alloying elements that are present in the chemistry and ultimately
results in a higher strength material compared to the other materials investigated in this project.
The goal is to discover the affects of welding currently exempted thicknesses and comparing the
results to thicker welded sections.

Table 2-10
Mechanical Requirements for SA-387-22-Cl 1 vs. Ht# 527078

Tensile Strength 0.2% Yield Strength % Elongation


(ksi) (ksi) in 2 inches
HT# 527078 80.1 61.5 44.
SA-387-22-Cl 1 60 - 85 30 min 18.0
Note: The tenth percentage digit of the elongation information was unreadable on the CMTR.

The mechanical results meet the requirements for the specification. The plate was normalized
and tempered at the mill.

2.1.3 Machining of Base Metal Thicknesses


One heat of each material was ordered to a 1 inch thickness. This was done so that various
thicknesses up to 1 inches could be machined from the same chemistry. Variations in the
testing results due to heat to heat chemistry differences could then be eliminated. By eliminating
the hardenability affects of varying chemistries from different products and manufacturers the
evaluation could then be confined to studying the affect of welding different thicknesses
exclusively. Three different plate thicknesses (, , and 1 ) were used for each material
with the exception of the SA-516-70 where a 1 inch plate and a inch plate was used because
the thinnest exemption thickness for this material is currently set at inch. The thickness limit
exemptions currently listed by various codes are given in Table 2-11 below. There are additional
notes or requirements that must be met before the exemptions listed below may be taken. The
thicknesses listed below are for informational purposes only and should not be considered
codified rules.

Table 2-11
Table of current (2004) exemption thicknesses to PWHT for various codes.

P No. B31.1 B31.3 Section I Sec. III Sec. VIII


1 1 1
3
4
5A

2-8
2.1.4 Welding & Materials
Compatible weld filler materials were selected for each material welded. Shielded metal arc
welding was utilized for both groove weld and bead on plate depositions. Bead on plate
depositions were completed for single bead depositions, 3 bead wide two layer depositions and 4
bead wide three layer depositions for each material and thickness. 1B1L represents one bead one
layer data points, 3B2L represents 3 beads wide by two layers and 4B3L represents 4 beads wide
and three layers. No attempt was made to specifically deposit the weld layers in a temperbead
like fashion for the full weld build ups on the thicker sections. The welding was carried out using
1/8 diameter electrodes for each plate with a stringer bead deposition and normal sequencing
with no buttering. An attempt was made to keep the same approximate travel speed for each
weld made. All rods were removed from clearly identified hermetically sealed packages. Specific
welding preheats and interpass temperatures are listed for each material heading in Table 2-12
below. The bead on plate testing for the P No. 3 material and the 0.27 % C P No. 1 material was
conducted without preheat. The max interpass temperatures were maintained. This was done to
show the true quenched hardness of the single bead on plate deposition. Knowledge of the
welding consumables chemistry was not imperative for this project because the intent was to
concentrate on the effect welding has on the base metal heat affected zone (HAZ) properties of
the various thicknesses of the different materials.

Table 2-12
Welding Information

Material Welding Electrode Amperage Voltage Preheat Interpass


Consumable Diameter (A) (V) Temp Temp
(in.) (F) (F)
SA-515-70 E7018 1/8 119 23-25 200 550
SA-516-70 E7018 1/8 119 23-25 200 550
SA204-C E7018-A1 1/8 119 23-25 200 550
SA-387-11 E8018-C3 1/8 119 23-25 250 550
SA-387-22 E9018- B3 1/8 119 23-25 300 550

2.1.4.1 Weld configuration


The weld configuration is given in figure 2-1 below. The single bevel joint preparation was
selected to aid in micro-hardness testing as well as providing for increased accuracy in placement

2-9
of the notch radius for the CVN testing near the fusion line of the weld in the base metal HAZ.

Plate

12 13
10 9 11
7 6 8

4
3 5

2 60

Figure 2-1
Weld Joint Geometry and typical sequencing

9 10 11 12
5 4 6 5 6 7 8
1 1 2 3 1 2 3 4

1Bead 1Layer 3Bead 2Layer 4Bead 3Layer

Figure 2-2
Bead on plate deposition.

2-10
2.2 Testing
In addition to the hardenability testing on each material, weld testing was performed on each
plate thickness for each material including the plate thicknesses that are currently exempted from
PWHT in the codes. This allowed for comparison of thicker weld plates with that of currently
exempted thicknesses. Various mechanical tests were performed on each completed weldment in
order to fully understand the effects of welding thicker components of the same heat of materials.
Each test was expected to provide relevant data that would provide some technical justification
in the development of an over all criteria in which to set exemption thickness limits for like
materials. The welded plates received no subsequent thermal processing following completion of
the weld. No machining or testing on any of the plates was done for approximately three weeks
following welding which was ample time to preclude any problems with hydrogen cracking.

2.2.1 Hardenability Testing


Hardenability testing was conducted for each material utilized for this project using the Jominy
end quench test. All tests were performed according to the ASTM specification A255. The
Jominy test was selected to yield baseline type information that would be critical in
understanding the effect that welding has on the hardness characteristics of each material.
Specifically, the Jominy end quench test will show what the maximum attainable hardness at the
quenched end is for each investigated material. This maximum hardness should be representative
of steels with similar chemistries and particularly the same approximate carbon content. The
Jominy test also provides a relative look at the hardness levels associated with various quench
rates. Lastly, the Jominy test provides data relative to the materials ability to sustain a level of
hardness through a specified depth or distance from the quenched end. All of this data will then
be compared with the hardness characteristics of welded component with the fusion line
representing the quenched end of the Jominy test bar. Part of the thickness exemption limit
determination from traditional engineering practice has been to consider that thicker sections
being welded create a larger heat sink, producing a faster quench rate. The faster quench rate
results in a harder HAZ. The welded component, as a result, may then be more susceptible to
cold cracking and local ductility problems. The data can be compared and contrasted as to how
these effects are manifested in the actual welded component.

2.2.2 Hardness Testing


Microhardness testing was selected to show the resultant hardness of welding the various
thickness plates of the same material. The data provides information relative to the influence of
thickness on final hardness as well as its resemblance to the Jominy test results.
Hardness traverses were conducted at three different locations through the thickness of the weld
for each plate thickness (near the face, midwall, and near the root). Figure 2-3 below is a
macrograph showing the approximate locations of where the hardness traverses were performed
for each plate thickness of each material. Bead on plate tests were conducted to show the
hardness traverses relative to a single bead deposition, a three bead wide two layer deposition
and a four bead wide three layer deposition. This was done to provide further information
comparative to the effects of multipass welding as well as corroborate the data relative to the

2-11
Jominy data. The hardness traverses for the bead on plate tests were conducted in the middle of
the deposited area down through the base metal as shown in Figure 2-4 below.

Microhardness
Traverses

Figure 2-3
Cross section of welded plate showing locations of hardness traverses.

Microhardness

A B C

Figure 2-4
Cross sections of bead on plate depositions and hardness traverse locations. (A) 1 bead 1 layer,
(B) 3 beads wide 2 layers, (C) 4 beads wide three layers

2.2.3 Tensile Testing


Tensile tests were performed for each weldment made. Tensile test coupons were machined from
full plate thickness to reveal the mechanical behavior relative to the full weldment. The gage

2-12
section of the tensile specimen contained the entire weld and base metal HAZ as well as
unaffected base metal on both sides of the weld. All tests were performed at room temperature
per standard testing specifications equal to that which would be conducted for weld qualification
testing. Ultimate tensile strength and failure locations were calculated and recorded for each test.
The results of the tensile tests provide mechanical strength data for each weldment that would
either pass or fail qualification requirements.

2.2.4 Charpy Impact Testing


Standard size (0.394 X 0.394) Charpy V Notch (CVN) impact specimens were removed from
each base metal material. Base metal HAZ and weld metal CVNs were removed for each plate
thickness welded. The vertical wall of the weld profile enabled accurate placement of the notch
root for the 1 and thick plates as well as the thick plates. The samples were removed
from near the top surface of the weldment (Face) for the and 1 thicknesses as this would
be considered the worst case location for the CVN tests because this depth location would
receive the least amount of tempering from subsequent weld passes. The CVN testing provides
data relative to the amount of absorbed energy that a material can endure while withstanding
impact type loading. It is a measure of the materials toughness or resistance to dynamic crack
propagation. By measuring the toughness in the HAZ, unaffected base metal and weld metal
conclusions could be drawn as to the affect of welding thicker sections.

2.2.5 Side Bend Testing


Side bend specimens were fabricated from each weldment in the exempted thickness and the
1 thick weld plates. These specimens were bent 180 in a bend testing fixture to reveal the
weld quality and any base metal HAZ ductility issues that may have arisen due to leaving the
weldments in the as welded condition.

2.2.6 Low Cycle Fatigue Testing


Cross weld round bar specimens (0.250) were removed from the full section weldments to test
the low cycle fatigue properties of the as welded plates. Each specimen was removed so that the
test area would be a composite of the base metal and weld metal with the HAZ centered in the
gage. Base metal samples were also machined and tested for baseline comparisons to welded
samples. These samples were run to failure under load control at various stress levels above the
endurance limit. The results of the base metal tests were used to generate a failure trend for each
specific material. Samples from the welded plates were then tested at the same conditions and
plotted on the same graphs to compare with the base metal trend. Some reasonable degree of
scatter is expected in this type of testing but, any significant degradation in the fatigue behavior
due to leaving the weldment in the as welded condition would be identified through the results
(cycles to failure) and the post mortem failure location examination.

2-13
3
RESULTS
3.1 Hardenability Testing Results

3.1.1 Individual Results


The results of each ASTM A-255 Jominy End Quench Tests are listed separately in the
appendix. As a result of standardizing the specimen size and mass flow rate of the impinging
water quench of the testing apparatus the actual cooling rates have been determined for each
sixteenth inch position located along the bar at 1300F. The original end quench test plots given
in the appendix show the approximate cooling rate in degrees F per second along the second X
axis at the top of the graph. They are listed in Table 3-1 below for reference.

Table 3-1
Approximate cooling rates for end quench test bar locations

Bar
Location
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
(sixteenth
inch)
Cooling
Rate 490 305 195 125 77 56 42 33 26 21 18 16 14 12 11
(F/Sec)

3.1.2 Hardenability Results Summary


The results of all the hardenability tests are plotted in Figure 3-1 below. Each trend line is
identified with the corresponding material grouping (e.g. P No.1 Group 1) and its actual carbon
content. The calculated carbon equivalent is also listed in the identification line on the graph.

3-1
Jominy End Quench Results

50.0

45.0

40.0

35.0
0.12 C / P5A Gr 1 / C.E. = 0.88
Hardness (Rc)

30.0

25.0

20.0
0.20 C / P3 Gr 2 / C.E. = 0.54
15.0
0.15 C / P4 Gr 1 / C.E. = 0.66
10.0
0.26 C / P1 Gr 2 / C.E. = 0.47 (normalized)

5.0 0.26 C / P1 Gr 2 / C.E. = 0.47 (as rolled)

0.20 C / P1 Gr 1 / C.E. = 0.46


0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Distance from Quenched End (sixteenths)

SA516 Gr 70 SA387-11 SA387-22 SA515 Gr70 As Rolled SA515 Gr70 Normalized SA204 Gr C

Figure 3-1
Graph showing all evaluated materials Jominy results.

One of the troubles with the current 2004 edition exemption thickness methodology is the
assumption that hardenability increases uniformly from lower P numbers to higher P numbers. In
actuality the hardenability of a lower P No. material can approach if not exceed that of a higher P
No. material as a result of the numerous material grades covered within the P number groups.
The P No.5A and P No.1 groupings for the materials evaluated in this project behaved in an
expected manner with relation to level of hardenability for the maximum and minimum.
However, the P No.3 material showed a higher hardenability as compared with the P No.4. This
may be a result of the strong affect of carbon, manganese, and vanadium has on the overall
hardenability of steels and the chemical specification limits associated with these specific
materials. The P No.3 material received a hardenability kick from slightly higher carbon
content. In fact the 0.27% carbon P No. 1 material actually showed a higher hardness at
approximately 0.300 from the quenched end due to its higher carbon content. This could be the
case in many instances throughout the P No.1 through P No.4 groupings. Increasing CE values
were expected to correlate to increased hardenability but this obviously is not entirely true in all
cases. The highest CE P No.5A material did exhibit the highest hardenability and the lowest CE
P No.1 material showed the lowest hardenability. The higher CE valued P No.4 material (0.66
CE) exhibited a lower hardenability compared to the P No.3 (0.54 CE). Again this may be due to
the strong influence of carbon, on the results of the Jominy end quench test.
The data in the master Jominy graph shows interesting points that were discussed in the previous
hardenability section. There was a transition region at approximately the 5/16 position on the
test bars for the materials tested. It can be seen that for positions further down the length of the
Jominy test bar (away from the quenched end) the results of each hardenability curve for each
material remains consistent. In other words the P No.5A material remains harder at each position
location followed by the P No.3, P No.4 and P No.1 materials hardness at each successive
location. The data to the left of the 5/16 position or closer to the quenched end produces

3-2
different results depending on how fast the quench rate is at that particular location of the test
bar. This is due to the materials ability to form a harder microstructure as a result of faster
quench rates. The delineating quench rate was anything faster than 77 F/sec. At the 4/16
position the hardest material was the P No.5A material followed by the P No.3, P No.4 and
finally the P No.1 material. By increasing the quench rate to 490 F/sec at the 1/16 position the P
No.1 (0.27 C) material became the hardest followed by the P No.3 material and P No. 1 (0.20 C),
because of their carbon content. The P No.4 material was now the fourth hardest with the P
No.5A material now being the softest of the four at the 1/16 location. Microhardness of the
quenched end of the Jominy test bar revealed the materials with the lowest overall hardenability
(P No.1) had the highest quenched end hardness while the highest hardenability material (P
No.5A) had the lowest quenched end hardness of all the materials investigated. This is due solely
to the effect of the carbon content of the materials investigated. It is clearly shown by
extrapolating the trend curves over to the hardness (y axis) value at the quenched end that the P
No 1 (0.27 C) material would have the highest quenched end hardness followed by the P No.3
(0.21 C), P No.1 (0.20 C), then the, P No.4 (0.15 C), and lastly the P No.5A (0.12 C) material.
Vickers microhardness (1kg) indentations were taken on the surface of the Jominy test bars in
between the Rockwell hardness test that were taken for the ASTM A-255 testing to provide a
correlation between the hardness test results utilizing Rockwell (macro-hardness) with that of the
Vickers hardness testing done on the weld deposits (microhardness). In almost all cases the
converted microhardness readings taken on the Jominy test bars were slightly higher than the
actual Rockwell C values recorded. This was not surprising since the small size of the
microhardness indentations have the ability to hit a small hardened area and therefore measure a
localized hard spot where the Rockwell hardness indentation averages over a larger area of hard
and softer locations to give a more average hardness. Rockwell macro hardness values therefore
tend to be slightly lower than microhardness particularly where hardness inhomogeneity is
present.

3.2 Hardness Testing Results


Microhardness testing was conducted on each bead on plate and weldment fabricated for each
material. All hardnesss were taken using a Vickers indenter with a 500 gram force load. The
sections below give the results specific to each material and each type of deposition (bead on
plate & full welds). Plots show the results of hardness traverses across the fusion line from weld
metal to base metal to reveal the effect of welding on the various thickness plates and materials.
Intermittent hardness increases associated with microhardness testing are inherent where small
areas of slightly harder microstructures may be present. The objective for this exercise is to look
at general trends relative to multipass welding on various thickness plates. Similar effects (hard
spots / softer spots) could be found when measuring a product that had received a subcritical
PWHT. Variation in hardness results is not uncommon, particularly in traverses across a weld
metal through the HAZ and into unaffected base metal.

3.2.1 Individual Results: P1 SA-516 Grade 70

3.2.1.1 Bead on Plate:


The results listed in Figure 3-2 and Figure 3-3 below show the hardness traverse results for the
bead on thick plate and 1 thick plate for the P No.1 SA-516-70 material. The thinnest plate
evaluated was the plate since it is the minimum thickness currently exempted in the codes

3-3
reviewed. The hardness traverses were completed through the center of the weld bead across the
fusion line and into the HAZ of the base metal and ultimately to unaffected base metal. The
unaffected base metal readings for the SA-516-70 material averaged 182 HV. The data on the
graphs are oriented so that 0 on the X axis represents the fusion line and the distance to the first
hardness measurement is where the hardness value was determined just inside the base metal
from the weld fusion line. The data proceeds to right with the indentation distance from the weld
fusion line given on the X axis.
The single bead on plate data is intended to show the worst case scenario of welding and how it
correlates to the Jominy end quench test results by likening the fusion wall of the base metal as
the quenched end of the Jominy test bar. Hardness conversions from Rockwell C scale to Vickers
for the Jominy data was done to compare the results of the two sets of data. The effects on
hardness from subsequent bead deposition are shown by the 3B2L and 4B3L data points.

Hardness Profile of Bead on Plate 3/4"


516 Gr 70

500
450
400
HV 0.5kg

350
300
250
200
150
100
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Distance from fusion line (thousandths)

1B1L 3B2L 4B3L

Figure 3-2
SA-516-70 Hardness Traverse Results of the bead on thick plate depositions.

3-4
Hardness Profile of Bead on Plate 1 1/2"
516 Gr 70

500
450
400
HV 0.5kg

350
300
250
200
150
100
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Distance from fusion line (thousandths)

1B1L 3B2L 4B3L

Figure 3-3
SA-516-70 Hardness Traverse Results of the bead on 1 thick plate depositions.

The data shows that the single bead on plate deposition produces the maximum HAZ hardness
for each thickness. The maximum hardness that is achieved is virtually equal (398HV) in both
thicknesses and is located just a few thousands from the weld fusion line in the HAZ. A
hardness of 398HV occurs on the Jominy bar at 0.080 0.100 from the quenched end and
corresponds to a quench rate of approximately 300-400 F/sec for both thicknesses. The
hardnesses of the bead on plate welds all level out to the base metal hardness of 150200HV at
approximately 0.080 from the fusion line. Increases in preheat would slow the quench rate and
serve to reduce maximum attainable hardnesses in the HAZ. Specifying correct preheats could be
used in the criteria to justify additional PWHT exemptions.
Figures 3-2 and 3-3 also show the hardness trends resultant from multiple weld passes. It can be
seen that after just one additional weld pass layer the preexisting base metal HAZ receives a
measurable degree of tempering from the heat input of the second pass in both plate thicknesses.
This effect is the basic principle behind temperbead technology where control of heat input, bead
placement, deposited weld area and sequence dimensioning are closely followed. In actuality any
multi-pass weld achieves some tempering, albeit with much less consistency in resultant
hardness as compared to a procedure where temperbead control parameters are followed.
Nevertheless, placing another weld pass over the 1st and 2nd layer reduced the hardness
associated with the base metal HAZ in both plate thicknesses. While the effect of multiple passes
were evident in the thick plate, the reduction of HAZ hardness between the second and third
pass for the 1 thick plate was more pronounced. The second weld pass reduced the base metal
HAZ hardness generally by 150 HV points as compared to the single bead on plate deposit. The

3-5
third weld pass reduced the hardness of the base metal HAZ by almost 200 HV compared to the
single bead deposit.

3.2.1.2 Full Thickness Welds:


The results listed in Figure 3-4 below show the average hardness traverse results for the full
thickness welds performed on and 1 thick plate for the P No.1 SA-516-70 material. The
hardness traverses shown are the mean values developed from averaging the, face, mid wall and
root hardness values at each location from the fusion line of the full section weldment. Traverses
were conducted across the fusion line and into the HAZ of the base metal until unaffected base
metal hardness values were reached.

Average Hardness Profile of 516 Gr 70 Weld Plate

500
450
400
HV 0.5kg

350
300
250
200
150
100
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Distance from fusion line (thousandths)

1 1/2" 3/4"

Figure 3-4
SA-516-70 Average Hardness Traverse Results of and 1 thick welded plate.

The data for the full weld plates trend similarly to the results of the bead on plate data for the
multiple bead on plate tests. The peak HAZ hardness is 226HV for the plate which is
approximately the same peak value as occurred on the multiple pass bead on plate tests. The
peak HAZ hardness is 263HV for the 1 plate which again is approximately the same peak
value as occurred on the multiple pass bead on plate tests. The sequencing represented in each
full thickness weld plate for each material was not done in a temperbead like fashion. Therefore
it is likely that some bead placements would not show the same amount of tempering by
successive beads as compared to the bead on plate tests. The full weld build ups exhibit
hardnesses well below that which were represented by the single bead on plate data, indicating
there was a good amount of tempering by successive bead depositions. Table 3-2 below
summarizes the results of the bead on plate and full thickness welding.

3-6
Table 3-2
Hardness Summary of Bead on Plate and Full Weld Plates for SA-516-70

Average Peak Peak HAZ Approximate


HAZ Hardness* Hardness HV500 HAZ Width
(HV500) (Thousandths)
1B1L - NA 398.3 100
3B2L NA 228.5 100
4B3L NA 233.6 100
1B1L 1 NA 398.6 100
3B2L 1 NA 269.5 100
4B3L 1 NA 210 100
Full Weld 213.8 225.7 80-100
Full Weld 1 250.6 262.8 80-100
* Calculated by averaging the peak hardness values found at each traverse for each plate thickness

3.2.2 Individual Results: P1 SA-515 Grade 70

3.2.2.1 Bead on Plate:


The results listed in Figure 3-5 below show the hardness traverse results for the bead on 1
thick plate for the P No.1 SA-515-70 material. The hardness traverses were completed through
the center of the bead across the fusion line and into the HAZ of the base metal to unaffected
base metal. The unaffected base metal readings for the SA-515-70 material averaged 193 HV.
The single bead on plate data is intended to show the worst case scenario of welding and how it
correlates to the Jominy end quench test results by likening the fusion wall of the base metal as
the quenched end of the Jominy test bar. The bead on plate work for this plate was conducted on
the thickest section evaluated with no preheat and with a 200F preheat to show the as quenched
hardness of the single bead on plate for comparisons with the Jominy and preheated hardnesses.
Hardness conversions from Rockwell C scale to Vickers for the Jominy data was done to
compare the results of the two sets of data. The affects on hardness from subsequent bead
deposition without preheat are shown by the 3B2L and 4B3L data points.

3-7
Hardness Profile of Bead on Plate 1 1/2"
515 Gr 70

500
450
400
HV 0.5kg

350
300
250
200
150
100
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Distance from fusion line (thousandths)

1B1L 3B2L 4B3L 1B1L w/200F PH

Figure 3-5
SA-515-70 Hardness Traverse Results of bead on 1 thick plate depositions.

The data shows that a single bead on plate deposition without preheat produces the maximum
HAZ hardness. The maximum hardness that is achieved is 494 HV and was the first indentation
located just a few thousands from the weld fusion line in the HAZ. This correlates well with the
hardness of 480HV which occurs on the Jominy bar at the 1/16 position. Raising the preheat
(PH) to 200F and performing another single bead on plate test lowered the hardness of the first
indentation in the HAZ by ~150HV. Specifying correct PH criteria could be used to justify
PWHT exemptions by minimizing resultant HAZ hardness. The hardnesses of the single bead on
plate depositions level out to base metal hardness at approximately 0.080 - 0.100 from the
fusion line.
The hardness trends from multiple weld passes show reduced HAZ hardnesses as a result of
tempering from successive weld passes. These trends show the result of tempering only, without
the effect of any applied preheat. Stringer beads were deposited and allowed to cool to room
temp prior to depositing the next bead. It can be seen that after just one additional layer the
preexisting base metal HAZ receives a measurable degree of tempering from the heat input of
the second pass. The second weld pass reduced the base metal HAZ hardness by ~200 HV points
as compared to the single bead on plate deposit. The third weld layer provided only a minor
amount of additional tempering to the base metal HAZ hardness as a result of the welding
parameters chosen for this procedure.

3.2.2.2 Full Thickness Welds:


The results listed in Figure 3-6 below show the average hardness traverse results for the full
thickness welds performed on , and 1 thick plate for the P No.1 SA-515-70 material.

3-8
The hardness values shown for each position are the average values that were taken at each of
the three traverses (face, midwall and root) for each full section weldment thickness.

Average Profile of 515 Gr 70 Weld Plate

500
450
400
HV 0.5kg

350
300
250
200
150
100
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Distance from fusion line (thousandths)

1 1/2" 3/4" 1/2"

Figure 3-6
SA-515-70 Average Hardness Traverse Results for the , and 1 thick welded plate.

The data for the full weld plates show trends below the results of the bead on plate data for the
multiple layer tests most likely because the full weld plates were subjected to a consistent
elevated preheat of 200F. The maximum HAZ hardness was obtained in the plate. The
maximum HAZ hardness values did not increase with increasing thickness. The full weld build
ups exhibit excellent tempering below that which is represented by the single bead on plate data
indicating there was a significant amount of tempering by successive bead depositions. Table 3-3
below summarizes the results of the bead on plate and full thickness welding.

3-9
Table 3-3
Hardness Summary of Bead on Plate and Full Weld Plates for SA-515-70

Average Peak Peak HAZ Approximate


HAZ Hardness* Hardness HV500 HAZ Width
(HV500) (Thousandths)
1B1L 1 NA 494.5 80-100
3B2L 1 NA 302.1 80-100
4B3L 1 NA 297.2 80-100
Full Weld 223.4 240.4 80-100
Full Weld 265.9 303.2 80-100
Full Weld 1 234.5 240.4 80-100
* Calculated by averaging the peak hardness values found at each traverse for each plate thickness

3.2.3 Individual Results: P3 SA-204 Grade C

3.2.3.1 Bead on Plate:


The results listed in Figure 3-7 below show the hardness traverse results for the bead on 1
thick plate for the P No.3 SA-204-C material. The hardness traverses were completed through
the center of the bead across the fusion line and into the HAZ of the base metal to unaffected
base metal. The unaffected base metal readings for the SA-204-C material averaged 208 HV.
The single bead on plate data is intended to show the worst case scenario of welding and how it
correlates to the Jominy end quench test results by likening the fusion wall of the base metal as
the quenched end of the Jominy test bar. In addition to the 1B1L bead on the 1 in. plate weld
with a preheat (200F), a test was also done with no preheat to show the as quenched hardness of
the single bead on plate for comparisons with the Jominy and preheated hardnesses. Hardness
conversions from Rockwell C scale to Vickers for the Jominy data was done to compare the
results of the two sets of data. The affects on hardness from subsequent bead deposition without
preheat are shown by the 3B2L and 4B3L data points.

3-10
Hardness Profile of Bead on Plate 1 1/2"
204C

500
450
400
HV 0.5kg

350
300
250
200
150
100
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Distance from fusion line (thousandths)

1B1L 3B2L 4B3L 1B1L w/200F PH

Figure 3-7
SA-204-C Hardness Traverse Results of bead on 1 thick plate depositions.

The data shows that a single bead on plate deposition without preheat produces the maximum
HAZ hardness. The maximum hardness that is achieved is 454 HV and was the third indentation
located 0.030 from the weld fusion line in the HAZ. This correlates well with the hardness of
440HV which occurs on the Jominy bar at the 1/16 position. Raising the preheat (PH) to 200F
and performing another single bead on plate test lowered the hardness of the first indentation in
the HAZ only slightly by ~25HV. Specifying correct PH criteria could be used to justify PWHT
exemptions by minimizing resultant HAZ hardness. A higher preheat temp for this material
could serve to reduce the maximum HAZ hardness. The hardnesses of the single bead on plate
depositions level out to base metal hardness at approximately 0.080 - 0.100 from the fusion
line.
The hardness trends from multiple weld passes show reduced HAZ hardnesses as a result of
tempering from successive weld passes. These trends show the result of tempering only, without
the effect of any applied preheat. Stringer beads were deposited and allowed to cool to room
temp prior to depositing the next bead. It can be seen that after just one additional layer the
preexisting base metal HAZ receives a measurable degree of tempering from the heat input of
the second pass. The second weld pass layer reduced the base metal HAZ hardness by ~150 HV
points as compared to the single bead on plate deposit. The third weld layer didnt provide any
appreciable amount of additional tempering to the base metal HAZ hardness as a result of the
welding parameters and material chosen for this procedure.

3.2.3.2 Full Thickness Welds:


The results listed in Figure 3-8 below show the average hardness traverse results for the full
thickness welds performed on , and 1 thick plate for the P No.3 SA-204-C material.

3-11
The hardness values shown for each position are the average values that were taken at each of
the three traverses (face, midwall and root) for each full section weldment thickness.

Average Hardness Profile of 204C Weld Plate

500
450
400
HV 0.5kg

350
300
250
200
150
100
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Distance from fusion line (thousandths)

1 1/2" 3/4" 1/2"

Figure 3-8
SA-204-C Average Hardness Traverse Results for the , and 1 thick welded plate.

The data for the full weld plates show trends slightly below the results of the bead on plate data
for the multiple layer tests most likely due to the application of 200F preheat. The maximum
HAZ hardness was obtained in the plate. The maximum HAZ hardness values did not
increase with increasing thickness. The full weld build ups exhibit excellent tempering below
that which is represented by the single bead on plate data indicating there was a significant
amount of tempering by successive bead depositions. Table 3-4 below summarizes the results of
the bead on plate and full thickness welding.

3-12
Table 3-4
Hardness Summary of Bead on Plate and Full Weld Plates for SA-204-C

Average Peak Peak HAZ Approximate


HAZ Hardness* Hardness HV500 HAZ Width
(HV500) (Thousandths)
1B1L 1 NA 454.8 80-100
3B2L 1 NA 324.6 80-100
4B3L 1 NA 312.2 80-100
Full Weld 304.3 322.7 80-100
Full Weld 332.0 340.3 80-100
Full Weld 1 294.3 303.7 80-100
* Calculated by averaging the peak hardness values found at each traverse for each plate thickness

3.2.4 Individual Results: P No.4 SA-387 Grade 11 Class 2

3.2.4.1 Bead on Plate:


The results listed in Figures 3-9, 3-10 and 3-11 below show the hardness traverse results for the
bead on thick plate, thick plate and 1 thick plate for the P No.4 SA-387-11 material.
The thinnest plate evaluated was the plate since it is the minimum thickness currently
exempted in the codes reviewed. The hardness traverses were completed through the center of
the bead across the fusion line and into the HAZ of the base metal into the unaffected base metal.
The unaffected base metal readings for the SA-387-11 material averaged 196 HV.

Hardness Profile of Bead on Plate 1/2"


387 Gr 11

500
450
400
HV 0.5kg

350
300
250
200
150
100
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Distance from fusion line (thousandths)

1B1L 3B2L 4B3L

Figure 3-9
SA-387-11 Class 2 Hardness Traverse Results of bead on thick plate depositions

3-13
Hardness Profile of Bead on Plate 3/4"
387 Gr 11

500
450
400
HV 0.5kg

350
300
250
200
150
100
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Distance from fusion line (thousandths)

1B1L 3B2L 4B3L

Figure 3-10
SA-387-11 Class 2 Hardness Traverse Results of bead on thick plate depositions.

Hardness Profile of Bead on Plate 1 1/2"


387 Gr 11

500
450
400
HV 0.5kg

350
300
250
200
150
100
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Distance from fusion line (thousandths)

1B1L 3B2L 4B3L

Figure 3-11
SA-387-11 Class 2 Hardness Traverse Results of bead on 1 thick plate depositions

3-14
The data shows that the single bead on plate deposition produces the maximum HAZ hardness
for each thickness. The maximum hardness that is achieved ranges from 380-417 HV for all
three thicknesses and is located just a few thousands from the weld fusion line in the HAZ. The
hardnesses of the bead on plate welds all level out at the base metal hardness of 196HV at
approximately 0.080 to 0.100.
The hardness trends resultant from multiple weld passes reveal that after just one additional weld
pass the preexisting base metal HAZ receives a measurable degree of tempering as compared to
the single bead HAZ hardnesses.

3.2.4.2 Full Thickness Welds:


The results listed in Figure 3-12 below shows the average hardness traverse results for the full
thickness welds performed on , and 1 thick plates for the P No.4 SA-387-11 material.
The hardness values shown for each position are the average values that were taken at each of
the three traverses (face, midwall and root) for each full section weldment thickness.

Average Hardness Profile of 387 Gr 11 Weld Plate

500
450
400
350
HV 0.5kg

300
250
200
150
100
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Distance from fusion line (thousandths)

1 1/2 " 3/4" 1/2"

Figure 3-12
SA-387-11 Class 2 Average Hardness Traverse Results of , , and 1 thick welded plate.

The data for the full weld plate trend similarly to the results of the bead on plate data. The peak
HAZ hardness was 312HV for the plate which is somewhat higher than the peak values
measured on the multiple pass bead on plate tests. The peak HAZ hardness was 335HV for the
plate which is higher than the peak values measured on the multiple pass bead on plate tests.
The peak HAZ hardness is 385HV for the 1 plate which is higher than the peak values
measured on the multiple pass bead on plate tests. These higher hardnesses for the full thickness

3-15
tests are expected to be the result of less effective tempering than was achieved with the multiple
pass bead on plate tests. Table 3-5 below summarizes the results of the bead on plate and full
thickness welding.

Table 3-5
Hardness Summary of Bead on Plate and Full Weld Plates for SA-387-11

Average Peak Peak HAZ Approximate HAZ


HAZ Hardness Width
Hardness* (HV500) (Thousandths)
(HV500)
1B1L NA 379.2 100
3B2L NA 279.0 100
4B3L NA 259.3 100
1B1L - NA 417.9 100
3B2L NA 258.0 100
4B3L NA 265.0 100-120
1B1L 1 NA 417.1 100
3B2L 1 NA 314.5 100
4B3L 1 NA 312.7 100
Full Weld 293.8 312.2 120
Full Weld 298.2 335.1 120
Full Weld 1 350.9 384.6 120
* Calculated by averaging the peak hardness values found at each traverse for each plate thickness

3.2.5 Individual Results: P No.5A SA-387 Grade 22 Class 1

3.2.5.1 Bead on Plate:


The results listed in Figures 3-13, 3-14 and 3-15 below show the hardness traverse results for the
bead on thick plate, thick plate and 1 thick plate for the P No.5A SA-387-22 material.
The thinnest plate evaluated was the plate since it is the minimum thickness currently
exempted in the codes reviewed. The hardness traverses were completed through the center of
the bead across the fusion line and into the HAZ of the base metal to unaffected base metal. The
unaffected base metal readings for the SA-387-22 material averaged 190 HV.

3-16
Hardness Profile of Bead on Plate 1/2"
387 Gr 22

500
450
400
HV 0.5kg

350
300
250
200
150
100
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Distance from fusion line (thousandths)

1B1L 3B2L 4B3L

Figure 3-13
SA-387-22 Class 1 Hardness Traverse Results of bead on thick plate depositions.

Hardness Profile of Bead on Plate 3/4"


387 Gr 22

500
450
400
HV 0.5kg

350
300
250
200
150
100
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Distance from fusion line (thousandths)

1B1L 3B2L 4B3L

Figure 3-14
SA-387-22 Class 1 Hardness Traverse Results of bead on thick plate depositions.

3-17
Hardness Profile of Bead on Plate 1 1/2"
387 Gr 22

500
450
400
HV 0.5kg

350
300
250
200
150
100
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Distance from fusion line (thousandths)

1B1L 3B2L 4B3L

Figure 3-15
SA-387-22 Class 1 Hardness Traverse Results of bead on 1 thick plate depositions

The data shows that the single bead on plate deposition produces the maximum HAZ hardness
for each thickness. The maximum hardness that is achieved ranges from 404-412 HV for all
three thicknesses and is located just a few thousands from the weld fusion line in the HAZ.
The average weld metal hardness for the 1B1L deposit was 369 HV, the 3B2L weld metal
hardness was 345 HV followed by the 4B3L average weld metal hardness of 338 HV. This high
hardness following successive deposit of weld metal indicate that the alloy content of the weld
filler is sufficiently high enough to maintain a high level of hardness. As a result the trends for
the hardness as the traverse crosses the fusion line show that the hardness in the base metal heat
affected zone are declining from the hardness of the weld metal. This is indicative of the type
properties that will result when using matching filler metals in a non PWHT condition. However
the varying hardnesses seen in the multiple pass welds in the weld metal shows that some
tempering has been achieved with subsequent passes. If this weldment had received a PWHT
then it may have exhibited hardness characteristics which were more in line with the base metal.
This also brings to light if using currently accepted matching fillers is appropriate in thicknesses
which are currently exempted from PWHT in all cases.
The single bead HAZ hardness values near the fusion line were generally higher than the second
and third layer passes as a result of tempering but, the 1 thick data showed much more
intermingled results with the single bead on plate results near the fusion line as compared to the
and thick plate data. On average, the second weld pass reduced the HAZ hardness of the
single bead on plate value by approximately 100 HV points.

3-18
3.2.5.2 Full Thickness Welds:
The results listed in Figure 3-16 show the average hardness traverse results for the full thickness
welds performed on , and 1 thick plates for the P No.5A SA-387-22 material. The
hardness values shown for each position are the average values that were taken at each of the
three traverses (face, midwall and root) for each full section weldment thickness.

Average Hardness Profile of 387 Gr 22 Weld Plate

500
450
400
HV 0.5kg

350
300
250
200
150
100
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Distance from fusion line (thousandths)

1 1/2" 3/4" 1/2"

Figure 3-16
SA-387-22 Class 1 Average Hardness Traverse Results of , and 1 thick welded plate.

The data for the full weld plates are similar to the results of the bead on plate data. The trend
across the fusion line due to the composition of the filler is unlike any of the other trends
developed in the other weld metal/base metal combinations. For this combination the peak
hardnesses do not occur in the HAZ but in the weld metal although the peak HAZ hardnesses are
close to the weld metal hardnesses. The previous trends from the other weld metal-base metal
combinations exhibited a lower hardness in the weld metal followed by an increase in the HAZ
at the fusion line and decayed to the hardness of the unaffected base metal. Table 3-6 below
summarizes the results of the bead on plate and full thickness welding.

3-19
Table 3-6
Hardness Summary of Bead on Plate and Full Weld Plates for SA-387-22

Average Peak HAZ Approximate


Peak HAZ Hardness HAZ Width
Hardness* (HV500) (Thousandths)
(HV500)
1B1L NA 412.7 110
3B2L NA 302.6 110
4B3L NA 285.4 110
1B1L - NA 404.1 110
3B2L NA 287.4 110
4B3L NA 287.4 110
1B1L 1 NA 411.8 110
3B2L 1 NA 319.7 110
4B3L 1 NA 333.2 110
Full Weld 302.8 317.4 100
Full Weld 334.9 374.6 100
Full Weld 330.1 383.0 80-100
1
* Calculated by averaging the peak hardness values found at each traverse for each plate thickness

3.2.6 Hardness Testing Summary


The data from the individual materials show that the HAZ widths (as measured by hardness) are
much smaller than the hardening depths exhibited through the continual quench from the
austenitizing temp of the Jominy test which is to be expected. The widths and hardnesses of the
various HAZs are resultant from many factors, the greatest of which is associated in the physical
differences associated with the heat transfer imparted to the base metal via the welding arc and
the materials ability to take that heat energy, absorb it, and ultimately transform to martensite.
While a carbon equivalent calculation (CE) is often times used to predict the hardenability of a
material and provides insight as to how well the material will form martensite upon quenching,
one can never know exactly how the material will behave without running the actual Jominy test
on that material. There are numerous CE formulae that have been developed in an attempt to
provide the user information relative to how a material will respond to quenching thermal cycles.
As the Jominy results show it is possible for a higher CE material to actually have a lower
hardenability than a lower CE material when using the same formula for both materials.
The maximum attainable hardness for each plate was revealed through the single bead on plate
testing. The single bead on plate data for every material showed that the HAZ widths of each
material were all under 0.150 and in most cases within 0.050 of each other regardless of
section thickness. The single bead on plate hardness values all showed the strong effect of carbon
on as quenched hardness. The SA 515-70 (C = 0.26) had the hardest HAZ with the SA204-C &
SA387-11 (C = 0.20) coming in second. The SA387-22 (C = 0.12) came in next with a max
hardness in the HAZ which was roughly 14 HV points harder than the higher carbon SA516-70
(C = 0.20) material. This is due to the much higher hardenability of the Grade 22 material that
was not counterbalanced by the applied preheat. The introduction of preheat serves to lower the
effective quench rate of the base metal in the HAZ region thereby lowering the maximum

3-20
hardness that could be achieved. The SA387-11 material exhibited the smallest single bead HAZ
peak hardness of the material examined.
The full weld plates maximum HAZ hardness values did not exhibit the same trend as compared
with the single bead on plate data due to the tempering of subsequent passes for any of the
thicknesses welded. For the full weld 1 thick plates, the P No 4 SA387-11 material had the
highest peak hardness by 1.6HV points (which are well within the hardness scatter band) over
the P No 5A SA387-22 material. These were the two lowest carbon materials. The P No 3
SA204-C material had the next highest peak hardness followed by the lower carbon P No 1
material SA516-70 and the lowest peak HAZ hardness in the largest thickness plate welded was
the highest carbon content P No 1 material SA515-70. The average peak hardnesses were
determined in an attempt to explain this behavior and attribute the ranking trends to localized
hardnesses which would disrupt the expected trends. However the averaged peak hardnesses
showed the same trends with only the P No 5A and 4 materials swapping positions. The average
peak hardness trends revealed the following ranking:
On average the highest peak HAZ in 1 Thick Full Weld Plates P No 4 SA 387-11
P No 5A SA 387-22
P No 3 SA204-C
P No 1 SA516-70
On average the lowest peak HAZ in 1 Thick Full Weld Plates - P No 1 SA515-70
Three materials (SA516-70, SA387-11 and SA387-22) exhibited a consistent increase in the
maximum peak hardness found as section thickness was increased for the full weld plates. It
should be noted that these maximums were found through taking numerous hardness traverses
through various sections of the plate thickness. In most cases the maximum value is a single data
point which spikes up along the traverse and then falls back down within the data trend. This can
be seen in the graphical presentation of the data. There was also no trend associated as to where
the maximum hardness would occur. Some maximums were achieved in the mid wall traverses,
some from the bottom quarter traverses and some from the top quarter traverses. This is likely
the result of the varying tempering influences of weld beads that were not placed in a controlled
deposition (temperbead) manner. The majority of the maximums did occur in the first or second
reading of the traverse just after passing over the fusion line going into the base metal HAZ.
Each traverse was typically spaced 0.005 0.010 apart from each other. When looking at the
average peak hardness only one material SA387-11 consistently showed an increase in average
peak hardness with increasing thickness. All other materials investigated showed trends where
the hardness increased from the thickness to the but then was reduced in the 1 plate
weldments.

3-21
3.3 Tensile Testing Results
Full section tensile tests were conducted for each welded plate. This was done so that any effect
on the tensile strength properties of the welded plate could be captured in the test. Ultimate
tensile strength and failure location were recorded for each test. The testing was conducted at
room temperature. Figure 3-17 shows the specimen used for the testing. The test specimen gage
section length was long enough to include the full weld with base metal on both sides of the weld
to allow the HAZ mechanical properties to come into play.

Top View

Weld

Width
Side View
Plate

Weld

Figure 3-17
Tensile Test specimen configuration.

3-22
3.3.1 Tensile Testing Summary
Table 3-7 below lists the results of each tensile test.

Table 3-7
Tensile Test Results

Nominal Plate Ultimate Tensile Failure Qualification


Material
Thickness (inch) Strength (ksi) Location (Pass / Fail)
P No.1 / SA-516-70 0.750 78.7 Base Pass
P No.1 / SA-516-70 1.5 76.7 Grip Pass
Specification 70 to 90
CMTR Value 74.6

P No.1 / SA-515-70 0.50 81.3 Base Pass


P No.1 / SA-515-70 0.750 83.7 Base Pass
P No.1 / SA-515-70 1.5 84.2 Base Pass
Specification 70 - 90
CMTR Value 80.5

P No.3 / SA-204-C 0.5 89.8 Weld Pass


P No.3 / SA-204-C 0.750 93.0 Weld Pass
P No.3 / SA-204-C 1.5 90.1 Weld Pass
Specification 75 - 95
CMTR Value 81.1

P No.4 / SA-387-11 Cl 2 0.5 80.8 Base Pass


P No.4 / SA-387-11 Cl 2 0.750 82.5 Base Pass
P No.4 / SA-387-11 Cl 2 1.5 81.7 Base Pass
Specification 75 to 100
CMTR Value 80.1

P No.5A / SA-387-22 Cl 1 0.5 79.7 Base Pass


P No.5A / SA-387-22 Cl 1 0.750 80.3 Base Pass
P No.5A / SA-387-22 Cl 1 1.5 86.3 Base Pass
Specification 60 to 85
CMTR Value 80

The results listed in Table 3-7 show that in all cases the tensile strengths are acceptable and
would pass qualification type requirements. None of the failures occurred in the HAZ or
exhibited a brittle type fracture appearance. Elongation was not calculated for any of the tests but
the tested samples all showed good signs of ductility in their fracture appearance. Figure 3-18
below shows the tested tensile samples for the P No.1 SA-516-70 and 1 thick plate
weldments. Figure 3-19 shows the tested tensile specimen for the 1 thick P No.5A SA-387-22
weldment. A sufficient amount of necking can be seen in both photographs of the tested samples
indicating appreciable amounts of ductility associated with the base metal failures. The
comparatively high strength of the P No.5A weld metal (E9018-B3) forced the majority of the
strain to occur in the adjacent base metal. Nevertheless the weldment exhibited enough
mechanical strength to resist brittle failure from occurring in any of the P No.5A welds.
The P No.3 material exhibited the highest tensile strength while failing in the weld metal.
Nevertheless the tensile test results passed the minimum specification requirement.

3-23
There were no indications that the tensile strengths of any of the materials were degraded from
welding thicker sections of plate. The tensile strengths for the thinnest plate welded were not
substantially different than the thickest plate welded. All tensile tests passed minimum required
strength levels.

Figure 3-18
Tested tensile sample for the 1 thick (top) and the thick (bottom) SA-516-70 weld plate.

Weld
Metal

Figure 3-19

3-24
Tested tensile sample for the 1 thick SA-387-22 Cl 1 weld plate.

3.4 Charpy Impact Testing Results


Standard size (0.394 X 0.394) Charpy V Notch (CVN) impact specimens were removed from
each base metal material. Base metal HAZ and weld metal CVNs were removed for each plate
thickness welded. The vertical fusion wall of the weld profile served to aid in CVN sample
removal and accurate placement of the notch root in the HAZ of each weld plate. Figure 3-20
shows the removal location and notch placement for each HAZ CVN test specimen for each
thickness weld plate. The notch was centered in the weld metal at the top of the weld plate for
the weld metal CVN samples in the same manner as the HAZ CVNs. Base metal CVN samples
were removed from each 1 thick base material in the as received condition and in the same
orientation near the top of the plate.

CVN sample taken from the top of the


= Weld profile
weld plate with notch located directly in

Figure 3-20
Side view of specimen removal and notch placement for HAZ CVN samples.

3-25
3.4.1 CVN Testing Summary
Table 3-8 below list the results of the individual CVN tests for each test plate material thickness.
The single values listed for each heading is the average of three CVN tests. All tests were
conducted at room temperature.

Table 3-8
CVN test results (average of three tests)

Thickness Base Metal Base Metal HAZ Weld Metal


Material (in.) CVN Impact CVN Impact CVN Impact
(ft-lbs) (ft-lbs) (ft-lbs)
0.75 178 201
P No.1 SA-516-70
1.5 149 167 181

0.5 171.2 167.3


P No.1 SA-515-70 0.75 83.5* 178.0
1.5 29.8 126.0 203.7

0.5 234.7 167.3


P No.3 SA-204-C 0.75 167.7 195.5
1.5 59.2 171.7 215.0

0.5 167 116


P No.4 SA-387-11 Cl 2 0.75 159 129
1.5 180 97 140

0.5 152 72
P No.5A SA-387-22 Cl 1 0.75 154 64
1.5 209 149 47
* average of two samples

The average base metal CVN values listed for the 1 thick plate are considered to be the same
values for the other thicknesses since they were from the same heat of material. Depending on
where the CVN samples were removed the testing location from the thickness of the plate could
reveal differences in the base metal impact results which is why the samples were removed from
the top of each plate. Every attempt was made in the machining process to reduce the thicknesses
of the test plates so that the top of the machined plate would still correspond to the top of the
original 1 plate.
The SA 515-70, plate was the average of only two tests due to inadequate length for the
correct placement of the HAZ notch in the test sample. The average value which is reported is
the average of 42.0 and 124.0 ft-lbs. The P No.4, 1 thick weld plate showed a measurable
drop in the impact energy as compared to the and thick plate. The three values which
were measured were (63, 83, 143.5 ft-lbs). As of the writing of this interim report no post
mortem evaluation has been completed on the tested samples to see if there was any indication of
sample extraction and machining defects which would have lead to these low fliers in the
measured CVN impact energies. All toughness values were above the unaffected base metal
energies for all thicknesses with the exception of the P No. 4 and 5A materials. Nonetheless the
average energies revealed for the HAZ in these two materials in all thicknesses were considered
excellent.

3-26
3.5 Side Bend Testing Results
Four side bend specimens were fabricated from each thickness of the welded plates. Table 3-9
below shows the results of the side bend testing.

Table 3-9
Side bend test results

Thickness
Material Pass / Fail Comments
(in.)
0.75 Pass
P No.1 SA-516-70
1.5 Pass

0.5 Pass A few minor LOF indications


P No.1 SA-515-70 0.75 Pass
1.5 Pass

0.5 Pass
P No.3 SA-204-C 0.75 Pass
1.5 Pass

0.5 A few root indications where


Pass full penetration was not
P No.4 SA-387-11 Cl 2 achieved
0.75 Pass
1.5 Pass

0.5 Pass
P No.5A SA-387-22 Cl 1 0.75 Pass
1.5 Pass

3.6 Low Cycle Fatigue Testing Results


Cross weld Low Cycle Fatigue (LCF) test specimens were fabricated for each plate thickness
welded. Test specimens were fabricated for the base metal samples and cross weld samples. For
the cross weld samples half of the specimen gage section was weld metal and the other half was
base metal. The HAZ was centered in the gage section. Figure 3-21 below shows an example of
a failed test specimen. The testing was conducted using a fully reversed cycle (R= -1) under load
control with the max and minimum axial loading stress (Ksi) listed in the table below. These
conditions were kept constant for both the base metal specimens and the cross weld samples.
These tests were conducted to reveal any adverse conditions resultant from welding which may
have affected the LCF strength in the welded coupons. The goal was to identify any shift in the
region of the S/N curve prior to reaching the endurance limit of the weldments. A post mortem
examination of the test specimens was conducted to determine if HAZ failures were predominant
in the testing. Table 3-10 below shows the conditions of the testing and the results for each test
conducted.

3-27
Weld

Base
HAZ

Figure 3-21
Example of test specimen for LCF specimens.

3-28
Table 3-10
LCF Test Results

Nominal Plate Loading Cycles To


Failure
Material Thickness Condition Failure Comments
Location
(inch) (+/- Ksi)
P No.1 / SA-515-70 / cross weld 0.75 48 20,480 BM
P No.1 / SA-515-70 / cross weld 0.75 46 42,282 BM
P No.1 / SA-515-70 / cross weld 0.75 43 88,526 Removed
P No.1 / SA-515-70 / cross weld 1.5 48 31,004 BM
P No.1 / SA-515-70 / cross weld 1.5 46 50,487 BM
P No.1 / SA-515-70 / cross weld 1.5 43 87,424 Removed
SA515-70 Base Metal 1.5 48 16,322 BM
SA515-70 Base Metal 1.5 46 20,639 BM
SA515-70 Base Metal 1.5 44 39,250 BM
SA515-70 Base Metal 1.5 43 66,046 BM

P No.1 / SA516-70 / cross weld 0.750 46.0 36,355 BM


P No.1 / SA516-70 / cross weld 0.750 44.0 48,488 BM
P No.1 / SA516-70 / cross weld 0.750 42.0 75,001 Removed
P No.1 / SA516-70 / cross weld 1.5 46.0 49,965 BM
P No.1 / SA516-70 / cross weld 1.5 44.0 72,569 BM
P No.1 / SA516-70 / cross weld 1.5 42.0 79,935 Removed
SA516-70 Base Metal 1.5 46.0 20,985 BM
SA516-70 Base Metal 1.5 44.0 24,509 BM
SA516-70 Base Metal 1.5 42.0 56,998 BM
SA516-70 Base Metal 1.5 40.0 96,407 BM

P No.3 / SA204-C / cross weld 0.5 58 9,651 WM Defects on FS


P No.3 / SA204-C / cross weld 0.5 56 21,718 WM Defects on FS
P No.3 / SA204-C / cross weld 0.5 53 1,277 WM @ FL Large Defects
P No.3 / SA204-C / cross weld 0.5 53 53,507 BM
P No.3 / SA204-C / cross weld 1.5 58 15,848 WM
P No.3 / SA204-C / cross weld 1.5 56 22,367 WM
P No.3 / SA204-C / cross weld 1.5 53 40,727 BM
SA204-C Base Metal 1.5 53 54,091 BM
SA204-C Base Metal 1.5 56 29,237 BM
SA204-C Base Metal 1.5 58 18,795 BM
SA204-C Base Metal 1.5 54 48,250 BM

P No.4 / SA387-11 / cross weld 0.5 58.0 4,796 WM near FL Large Defects
P No.4 / SA387-11 / cross weld 0.5 53.0 27,390 WM @ FL Large Defects
P No.4 / SA387-11 / cross weld 0.5 50.0 3,390 WM near FL Large Defects
P No.4 / SA387-11 / cross weld 0.5 49.0 6,858 WM near FL Large Defects
P No.4 / SA387-11 / cross weld 1.5 56.0 6,147 WM near FL Large defects
P No.4 / SA387-11 / cross weld 1.5 52.0 41,841 BM
P No.4 / SA387-11 / cross weld 1.5 49.0 13,978 WM near FL Large Defects
P No.4 / SA387-11 / cross weld 1.5 49.0 21,223 WM near FL Large Defects
SA 387-11 Base Metal 1.5 56.0 9,586 BM
SA 387-11 Base Metal 1.5 52.0 27,534 BM
SA 387-11 Base Metal 1.5 49.0 54,652 BM

P No.5A / SA387-22 / crossweld 0.5 56.0 15,904 BM


P No.5A / SA387-22 / crossweld 0.5 52.0 23,027 BM OD Surf Defect
P No.5A / SA387-22 / crossweld 0.5 50.0 78,211 FL Defects on FS
P No.5A / SA387-22 / crossweld 0.5 49.0 67,222 WM / BM
P No.5A / SA387-22 / crossweld 1.5 58.0 7,445 BM
P No.5A / SA387-22 / crossweld 1.5 53.0 27,632 BM
P No.5A / SA387-22 / crossweld 1.5 50.0 86,375 Removed
SA387-22 Base Metal 1.5 58.0 7,840 BM
SA387-22 Base Metal 1.5 53.0 35,967 BM
SA387-22 Base Metal 1.5 51.5 54,685 BM
SA387-22 Base Metal 1.5 50.0 81,825 BM
Removed indicates the testing was terminated prior to specimen failure.
Failure Locations = WM (Weld Metal), FL (Fusion Line), BM (base Metal)
Comments = Defects on Fracture surface / Large Defects on Fracture Surface
Each materials results are shown graphically in Figures 3-22 through 3-26 below.

3-29
S/N Curve for SA515-70

50.0

48.0
Test Stress (Ksi)

46.0

44.0

42.0

40.0

38.0
0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,000
Number of Cycles to Failure

SA515-70 Base Metal SA515-70 (0.75") SA515-70 (1.5") Linear (SA515-70 Base Metal)

Figure 3-22: Graphical results of the LCF testing for the SA515-70 material.

S/N Curves for SA516-70

50.0

48.0

46.0
Test Stress (Ksi)

44.0

42.0

40.0

38.0
0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,000
Number of Cycles to Failure

SA516-70 Base Metal SA516-70 (0.75") SA516-70 (1.5") Linear (SA516-70 Base Metal)

Figure 3-23: Graphical results of the LCF testing for the SA516-70 material.

3-30
S/N Curves for SA204-C

59

58

57
Test Stress (Ksi)

56

55

54

53

52
0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,000
Num ber of Cycles to Failure

SA204-C Base Metal SA204-C (0.5") SA204-C (1.5") Linear (SA204-C Base Metal)

Figure 3-24: Graphical results of the LCF testing for the SA204-C material.

S/N Curves for SA387-11

60.0

58.0

56.0
Test Stress (Ksi)

54.0

52.0

50.0

48.0
0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,000
Number of Cycles to Failure

SA387-11 Base Metal SA387-11 (0.5") SA387-11 (1.5") Linear (SA387-11 Base Metal)

Figure 3-25: Graphical results of the LCF testing for the SA387-11 material.

3-31
S/N Curves for SA387-22

59.0

58.0

57.0

56.0

55.0
Test Stress (Ksi)

54.0

53.0

52.0

51.0

50.0

49.0

48.0
0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,000
Number of Cycles to Failure
SA387-22 Base Metal SA387-22 (0.5") SA387-22 (1.5") Linear (SA387-22 Base Metal)

Figure 3-26: Graphical results of the LCF testing for the SA387-22 material. Circled points indicate
defects present on the fracture surface.

The results of the LCF testing showed no detrimental effects of the welding thicker sections
without PWHT. There were specimens that failed prematurely (farther to the left on the graph) as
compared to the base metal trend line. The post testing examination found all of the samples
which were located substantially to the left of the base metal trend line were weld metal failures
that had defects located on the fracture surface. Figure 3-27 below is a photographic example of
the typical defects found on the fracture surface of the prematurely failed samples. This would
explain the premature failure of these specimens due to stress concentration sites which were
exacerbated by the lower cross sectional area in the test gage section because the testing was run
under load control. There were no indications that that the failure location was concentrated in
the HAZ that would have resulted due to the absence of PWHT. The cross weld samples that
failed in the base metal with only a few exceptions were in line with or better than the base metal
trend for the material.

3-32
Lack of
Fusion

Lack of bond
/ inclusions /
porosity

Figure 3-27
Examples of defects on the fracture surface causing premature failure in the SA387-11 cross weld
LCF samples.

3-33
4
CONCLUSIONS
4.1 Hardenability & Mechanical Results
It is the intent of this document to provide technical data in which justifications can be made to
support any increases in the current exemption thickness limits set forth by various ASME codes.
Ideally, the goal is often to provide an invisible weld where the composition and properties of
the weld and HAZ are the same as the base metal. While this is not realistic, the goal is to
determine to what thickness a material can be successfully welded without PWHT and expected
to provide safe, reliable service.
While the hardness values associated with a non-PWHTd component may be relatively higher
than those measured in a PWHTd condition, the effect on the overall mechanical behavior of the
welded component is what is in question. The results of the mechanical testing show that a
harder component, to a certain degree, does not necessarily mean that the material has been
degraded. For example, high hardness does not always correlate to low toughness.
Hardenability properties which have been estimated by the use of CE formulas do not appear to
provide enough information in the materials investigated (P Nos.1, 3, 4 and 5A) to correlate with
the outcome of the HAZ properties. Hardness measurements across the fusion line through the
HAZ do not reveal a consistent trend which would prohibit welding these materials in thicker
sections. The P No.4 material, based on the results of averaging the peak hardness evaluations
was the only material that showed an increase in the average HAZ hardness as plate thickness
increased from 0.5 to 0.75 to 1.5. The SA516-70 material showed a hardness increase from
the 0.75 to 1.5 but no weldment was made for a thick plate of this material.
Carbon content is a strong indicator that affects the maximum level of hardness particularly
within the first 100-200 thousandths of the base metal heat affected zone for the single bead on
plate tests of the P Nos.1, 3, 4 and 5A materials. The hardnesses developed near the quenched
end of the Jominy test bar were not apparent in the full welded plate as a result of tempering
between weld passes in the weld plate.
It is well known that preheat reduces the quench rate of the base metal during welding. This in
turn reduces the maximum hardness attainable in the HAZ. This was shown in the single bead on
plate tests reported in this study where preheat was used and compared with the hardness at the
quench end of the Jominy test and the HAZ hardness near the fusion line of a single bead on
plate test (without preheat). The trends of the various hardness traverses appeared to be more
dependent on the effectiveness of the selected preheat to slow the quench rate of the deposited
weld metal and HAZ and the ability of the material to receive tempering from subsequent weld
passes which served to lower the peak hardness.
The tensile test results were all satisfactory in that they showed that adequate tensile strength can
be achieved without PWHT in the materials tested. The location of the failure in the tensile tests
and the hardness test results pointed out the importance of filler metal selection. The P No.5A

4-1
weld metal was a similar composition as the base metal but does not respond to tempering like
that of the base metal HAZ from subsequent weld passes. This resulted in a high relative
strength and hardness in the weld that was not present in the base metal. The tensile test results
on the P No.5A material showed relatively no strain in the weld and the failure in the base metal.
Again the issue is the difference in the properties across the weldment. Selection of the
appropriate filler materials when welding without subsequent PWHT is key in minimizing the
metallurgical notch affect of weldments. The toughness tests showed that substantial toughness
can be achieved relative to the hardness levels that were created from welding. The testing was
conducted at room temperature for this study. Transition curve behavior would not be expected
to suffer as a result of welding on these materials. All of the materials had adequate toughness in
the HAZ near the fusion line.

4.1.1 Welding Thicker Sections - Summary


Tables 4-1 and 4-2 below show the results of the hardness examinations and the CVN impact
strengths resultant from welding thicker sections for each material. No detrimental effects were
prevalent when welding was conducted on thicknesses which were greater than the currently
exempted thickness limits set forth by the codes. The tensile tests, side bend tests and the fatigue
testing all showed satisfactory results following welding thicker sections and leaving them in the
as welded condition.

Table 4-1
Comparison of the Average Maximum Hardness & Carbon Equivalents for , , and 1 Full
Thickness Welds

MATERIAL
CE CARBON 1-1/2
GROUPING
P1, Group 1
0.46 0.20 -- 213.8 250.6
SA516, Gr. 70
P1, Group 2
0.47 0.26 223.5 265.9 234.5
SA515, Gr 70
P3, Group 2
0.54 0.20 304.3 332.0 294.3
SA204 Gr. C
P4, Gr 1, CL 2
0.66 0.15 293.8 298.2 350.9
SA387 11
P5A, Gr 22, CL1
0.88 0.12 302.8 334.9 330.1
SA387 22

4-2
Table 4-2
Comparison of CVN Impact Energies for , , and 1 Full Thickness Welds

BASE 1-1/2
MATERIAL
CE CARBON METAL HAZ HAZ HAZ
GROUPING (FT-LBS) (FT-LBS) (FT-LBS) (FT-LBS)
P1, Group 1
0.46 0.20 149.0 -- 178.0 167.0
SA516, Gr. 70
P1, Group 2
0.47 0.26 29.8 171.2 83.5* 126.0
SA515, Gr 70
P3, Group 2
0.54 0.20 59.2 234.7 167.7 171.7
SA204 Gr. C
P4, Gr 1, CL 2
0.66 0.15 180.0 167.0 159.0 97.0
SA387 11
P5A, Gr 22, CL1
0.88 0.12 209.0 152.0 154.0 149.0
SA387 22
* = average of two CVNs instead of three

4.2 Criteria for PWHT Exemption Thickness


As stated above, the purpose of PWHT is to reduce residual stresses to an acceptable level and to
temper hardened microstructures of the weldment and base metal HAZ (i.e., striving for the
invisible weld). The justification for the thicknesses that may be exempted in various
materials should show that adequate properties are achieved and that there are only justifiable
differences between the weld, the HAZ, and the base metal properties. There has always been a
concern for the peak hardness, particularly at the fusion line HAZ. The results of these tests
show that this may not be a major concern when limited heat input multiple pass welds are used.
The use of controlled placement of weld passes with specific heat input (i.e., temperbead
welding) is one approach that justifies welding without subsequent PWHT although these
techniques do require a more highly skilled welding staff and sophisticated equipment. Other
criteria that would be of value are increased preheating temperatures. Finally, the use of
specifically engineered filler metals would also contribute to minimizing differences in the
properties of the weldments.
The removal of residual stresses and the tempering of the weldment microstructures can be very
important to the level of corrosion resistance achieved. It is not advisable to eliminate PWHT in
particularly severe corrosive environments. The corrosion resistance criteria for PWHT is only
generally addressed in the current Code rules in that the desired effect of Code required PWHT is
to reduce the detrimental effects of residual stress and hardened microstructures. Caution may
be needed in the Code rules to warn users that reducing the need to do PWHT based only on the
mechanical properties achieved may result in a lower corrosion resistance.

4-3
5
FUTURE WORK
5.1 Additional Testing
2006 work involves testing of the P No. 4 (grade 11) and 5A (grade 22) materials in pipe form
with the FCAW process to evaluate the effect of welding position and higher heat input.

5.2 Code Support

The conclusions which were developed from the results will be reanalyzed for their consistency
in light of additional testing results. Any modifications to the criteria established for PWHT
exemption thickness determination will be conducted and a white paper will be developed for
code review. EPRI staff and contractor will be responsible for championing technical revision
items necessary for implementing the proposed criteria for the PWHT exemption thickness.

5-1
6
REFERENCES
1. BPTCS Task Group on PWHT Final Report, ASME, March 4, 1998
2. Realistic Carbon Equivalent for Underwater Welding, EPRI Repair & Replacement
Applications Center, Charlotte, NC:2002. 1006799.
3. PWHT Exemptions for Low Hardenability Materials, EPRI-RRAC, Charlotte, NC: 2004.
1008277
4. Robert D. Stout: Weldability of Steels, Welding Research Council, NY, 1987
5. George E. Linnert: Welding Metallurgy Carbon and Alloy Steels, Third Edition, Vol. 2
American Welding Society

6-1
A
CERTIFIED MATERIAL TEST REPORTS

A-1
A-2
A-3
A-4
A-5
A-6
A-7
A-8
B
HARDENABILITY CURVES

B-1
B-2
B-3
B-4
B-5
B-6
B-7
B-8
Export Control Restrictions The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)
Access to and use of EPRI Intellectual Property is The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), with
granted with the specific understanding and major locations in Palo Alto, California, and Charlotte,
requirement that responsibility for ensuring full North Carolina, was established in 1973 as an
compliance with all applicable U.S. and foreign export independent, nonprofit center for public interest energy
laws and regulations is being undertaken by you and and environmental research. EPRI brings together
your company. This includes an obligation to ensure members, participants, the Institutes scientists and
that any individual receiving access hereunder who is engineers, and other leading experts to work
not a U.S. citizen or permanent U.S. resident is collaboratively on solutions to the challenges of electric
permitted access under applicable U.S. and foreign power. These solutions span nearly every area of
export laws and regulations. In the event you are electricity generation, delivery, and use, including
uncertain whether you or your company may lawfully health, safety, and environment. EPRIs members
obtain access to this EPRI Intellectual Property, you represent over 90% of the electricity generated in the
acknowledge that it is your obligation to consult with United States. International participation represents
your companys legal counsel to determine whether nearly 15% of EPRIs total research, development, and
this access is lawful. Although EPRI may make demonstration program.
available on a case-by-case basis an informal
assessment of the applicable U.S. export classification TogetherShaping the Future of Electricity
for specific EPRI Intellectual Property, you and your
company acknowledge that this assessment is solely
for informational purposes and not for reliance
purposes. You and your company acknowledge that it
is still the obligation of you and your company to make
your own assessment of the applicable U.S. export
classification and ensure compliance accordingly. You
and your company understand and acknowledge your
obligations to make a prompt report to EPRI and the
appropriate authorities regarding any access to or use
of EPRI Intellectual Property hereunder that may be in
violation of applicable U.S. or foreign export laws or
regulations.

2006 Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Inc. All rights


reserved. Electric Power Research Institute and EPRI are registered
service marks of the Electric Power Research Institute, Inc.

Printed on recycled paper in the United States of America 1013554

ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE


3420 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304-1339 PO Box 10412, Palo Alto, California 94303-0813 USA
800.313.3774 650.855.2121 askepri@epri.com www.epri.com