Nickel content limit from NACE0175?
Nickel content limit from NACE0175?
(OP)
Experts, wondering why NACE0175 has a nickel limit as 1.0% on carbon or low alloy carbon steel?
For example, 4340 and 4330V are are excellent through hardening material for large diameter stuff. But they are out given the 1.0% limit on Nickel.
Thanks a lot for your any inputs in advance.
For example, 4340 and 4330V are are excellent through hardening material for large diameter stuff. But they are out given the 1.0% limit on Nickel.
Thanks a lot for your any inputs in advance.





RE: Nickel content limit from NACE0175?
rp
RE: Nickel content limit from NACE0175?
RE: Nickel content limit from NACE0175?
Dr Bruce Craig (Oilfield Metallurgy and Corrosion) did a lot of consulting/ publishing for Inco and NiDI (?) to get higher Ni accepted but was unsucessful. Craig has other pubs including SPE -Sour Gas Monograph.
BP had a very $$$$ riser failure (before start-up) of platform (not- Crazy Horse, cuz the indians didn't like that name) ,caused by HSCC of big (like 5") 4340 studs in riser flanges. This failure cause has not officially been resolved as far as I know.
Redpickers answer is correct but not as much fun.
RE: Nickel content limit from NACE0175?
Michael McGuire
http://stainlesssteelforengineers.blogspot.com/
RE: Nickel content limit from NACE0175?
Steve Jones
Materials & Corrosion Engineer
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/8/83b/b04
RE: Nickel content limit from NACE0175?
Inco /Dr Craig , and many others never could show that Ni (and Mn) were not a problem for HSCC ;Although there may not be a neat explanation ( literature by Treseader, Kohut, etc at Shell would be a place to start looking for history). Experienced organizations that want to minimze risk of HSCC limit Ni/Mn: So specs for high strength steels where there is a risk of HSCC limit Ni and Mn (austenitizers) ,eg. API C90, T95, C100 /110 (not official) , ASTM A387, A542, etc .(I do admit to being obsolete so there are likely newer ASTM specs.).
RE: Nickel content limit from NACE0175?
MR0-175 was written using a number of different scientific and quasi-scientific sources. I wouldnt read too far into the nickel requirements other than to say that it was the observation of the researchers, and available field data, that steels with less than 1% nickel did not crack, and those with higher nickel were more prone to cracking.
As mentioned by (SJones) MR0175 does allow for you to qualify the material by a couple of different methods. Others have mentioned that Nickel content might not be that detrimental, so it might be worthwhile for you to qualify your part.
I am curious though, if you temper the 4330 back to the 22HRC requirements wouldnt that lower many of its mechanical properties that might have made it an attractive alloy in the first place?
-vrf
RE: Nickel content limit from NACE0175?
Michael McGuire
http://stainlesssteelforengineers.blogspot.com/
RE: Nickel content limit from NACE0175?
Seriously, though, blacksmith37 pretty much hit it on the head. When I first heard about the limit, over 30 years ago, I thought it had to be a mistaken cause and effect correlation. Back then, everyone was using "22 HRC max" and "< 1% Nickel" and even 80,000 psi yield material was really pushing it for sour service applications. I've developed chemistries that can now be pushed from 110,000 to nearly 120,000 PSI yeild and up to 32 HRC that will survive a Method A test at 85% SMYS for 30 days. Since that is rather common these days, they have started wanting Method D to give something like 28 KSI in^.5 or so. As soon as you crack the nut, they move the goalposts.
Anyway, you won't find anyone making any of these high strength sour service steels that doesn't limit the Nickel to 0.15% or less. It is a real effect, so don't write it off as some old-timer's blaming a failure on nickel and nobody questioning it.
rp
RE: Nickel content limit from NACE0175?
Was it not actually manifold welds owing to embrittlement of dissimilar metal buttering discussed in NACE 2009, Paper 09305?
Steve Jones
Materials & Corrosion Engineer
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/8/83b/b04
RE: Nickel content limit from NACE0175?
Agreeing with Red; the first good C 110 ( 4 mills worldwide in ca. 1992) used very high double temper of Cr :Mo conpositions. (And longer radis of the NACE 0.252" test bar). One european mill kept trying to also use Mn (+ Cr:Mo) but couldn't make good T-95 (at that time).
RE: Nickel content limit from NACE0175?
My example of using 4340 wasn't a good example. Few or nobody will try to temper it below 22HRC, even though I think it has its benefits if it is possible, such as deeper hardenability for large diameter bar stock, good low temperature toughness from higher Nickel. I admit I never seen a Q&T 4340 < 22HRC.
To redpicker:
I think your very first post meant stress corrosion cracking, a typo. Your abbrevation got it right.
Everyone, thank you so much for the input and they are indeed excellent discussions. I need time and experience to fully understand some of them though.
RE: Nickel content limit from NACE0175?
rp
RE: Nickel content limit from NACE0175?
RE: Nickel content limit from NACE0175?
Actually the 4340 is a very good example. This was tha alloy (vs 4140) which originaly exhibited the susceptibility to SCC. Additional materials testing was done and the results led to 1% max Ni limitation into MR 0175.
There was also considerable published work by others to refute the requirement in the mid to late 1970's.
RE: Nickel content limit from NACE0175?