Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations cowski on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
SA-350 LF2 vs SA-765 GR 2 1
- Thread starter gpape
- Start date
-
1
- #2
We have SA 350 LF2 forgings for our older high pressure and low pressure feedwater heater tubesheets. No problems to speak of - it is a very common forging material.
Today, I would probably recommend going with SA-765 Grade II only because it applies directly to carbon and low alloy steel forgings for use in heat exchanger and feedwater heater components, like tubesheets.
Today, I would probably recommend going with SA-765 Grade II only because it applies directly to carbon and low alloy steel forgings for use in heat exchanger and feedwater heater components, like tubesheets.
SA-350 LF1 and LF2 has a long history in both the petrochemical and power industries in similar thickness and thicker tubesheet applications. The primary differences between the two specs are SA-350 LF2 is made to fine grain melting practice and impact testing is required while fine grain melting and impact testing is optional for SA-765. There is also a subtle difference in impact test location for your thickness.
- Thread starter
- #5
Thanks metengr! You have stated the same evidence that I had originally come up with. The only draw back that I can see, is the addition of Ni, Cr, Mo, V, Al & Cu to the chemical analysis. I do understand that this makes it tougher and more weldable that LF2. I also am happy with the required testing, since I have required even more tests than SA 765 requires when I bought SA 350 LF2.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question
- Question
- Locked
- Question
