INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Jobs

SA-350 LF2 vs SA-765 GR 2

SA-350 LF2 vs SA-765 GR 2

(OP)
Does anyone have any comments or history with these materials used for large, thick (14") ASME tube sheets?  Design 350 PSI @ 500°F - MDMT (-)20°F? I am interested in the toughness and the best material I can get.

RE: SA-350 LF2 vs SA-765 GR 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.

RE: SA-350 LF2 vs SA-765 GR 2

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.

RE: SA-350 LF2 vs SA-765 GR 2

Stanweld;
Impact tests are required in ASME SA 765 - Table 3. The purchaser can recommend other test temperatures as optional but you need to conduct impact tests. For Grade II the impact test requirement is 12 ft-lbs at -50 deg F.

RE: SA-350 LF2 vs SA-765 GR 2

(OP)
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.

RE: SA-350 LF2 vs SA-765 GR 2

metengr,
Oops, misread 6.1. Going senile.

RE: SA-350 LF2 vs SA-765 GR 2

Stan;
Been there and have done that many times. Time for a beer!

RE: SA-350 LF2 vs SA-765 GR 2

stanweld

I call that a "senior moment" and it seems to happening more frequently.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources


Close Box

Join Eng-Tips® Today!

Join your peers on the Internet's largest technical engineering professional community.
It's easy to join and it's free.

Here's Why Members Love Eng-Tips Forums:

Register now while it's still free!

Already a member? Close this window and log in.

Join Us             Close