How to improve impact test energy value
How to improve impact test energy value
(OP)
Dear all,
Is there any way to improve impact test for Heat Affected Zone that failed ? Will PWHT improve it ?
This is for P1-P6 with E309L weld metal, and P6-P6 with ERNiCrMo-3 weld metal, tested at -20C, got less than 10J.
Is there any way to improve impact test for Heat Affected Zone that failed ? Will PWHT improve it ?
This is for P1-P6 with E309L weld metal, and P6-P6 with ERNiCrMo-3 weld metal, tested at -20C, got less than 10J.





RE: How to improve impact test energy value
You might try a temper bead deposition sequence as an option to increase notch toughness if you are locked into SMAW. I have seen this work on most P-No 1 and P-No 3 base materials.
RE: How to improve impact test energy value
RE: How to improve impact test energy value
The MDMT is at -27C.
It is nozzle neck (P6) to shell (P1) welding, and nozzle neck( P6) to flange (P7) welding.
The vessel will not be PWHT, but just want to know if PWHT will help.
Will UHA-51 be able to exempt from doing impact test ?
RE: How to improve impact test energy value
RE: How to improve impact test energy value
Can you be more specific where in the code I can find the impact test is not required.
The vessel is SA516-70,
Nozzle neck is SA-268-TP410 and SA-240-410S
Flange is SA-182-F6a, Class 1
RE: How to improve impact test energy value
RE: How to improve impact test energy value
Also, if your flange is a B16.5 pattern -F6a is not a listed mateial, no P-T rating, see B16.5 Table 1A.
Regards,
Mike
RE: How to improve impact test energy value
No 13Cr flange rating per B16.5. Gosh, I never pay attention to it since never encountered in the past. Thanks for your good eyes.
What can they do ? Run flange design calc per code ?
RE: How to improve impact test energy value
RE: How to improve impact test energy value
The question I have is, why no 13Cr flange in the B16.5 ? must have a reason.
RE: How to improve impact test energy value
Just about any flange vendor will sell you B16.5 pattern flanges in 12-13 Cr, without mentioning they are not listed.
Quote: "The world is full of things you can buy. Not all of them are suitable for use in ASME Code pressure vessels." (me)
Regards,
Mike
RE: How to improve impact test energy value
I just called a flange supplier, the answer is: 13Cr is not recognized as weldable material in B16.5, but they can fabricate from this materail and verified by App 2.
Seems no other way out.
RE: How to improve impact test energy value
RE: How to improve impact test energy value
Still a problem:
Running App 2 that means most of the standard dimensions from B16.5 will not work, therefore flanges will be special made, that becomes a headache in fabriaciton and maintenance, even may have problem to use standard gasket.
I found a way out if that could be acceptable without going through Appen 2 as follow:
13Cr forging has the same allowable stress as SA-105 at ambient temp but much better allowable stress than SA-105 at 775F.
So I shall be able to call this 13Cr flange as 150# if it is made to the dimensions of B16.5, and put into service without verified by Appendix 2, becasue it has better properties than SA-105.
Any problem doing this ?
RE: How to improve impact test energy value
Regards,
Mike
RE: How to improve impact test energy value
Can you be more specific which para in II-D the impact test can be exempt.
I check B31.3, for the 13Cr pipe and flange, it seems impact test is not required at -20F and warmer per material note (6), although note (35) gives some warning about low ductility/ low impact properties at room temp. And in Table 323.3.5, P6 P7 shall be tested by lateral expansion, not energy impact test. If impact test can not be waived by II-D, can it be done by lateral expansion test per B31.3 ? My friend is running into all kinds of troubles now.
RE: How to improve impact test energy value
RE: How to improve impact test energy value
I reviewed UHA-51(d)(3) (b) & (c) that snTman mentioned with our welding engineer, and the conclusion from there is that imapct test can not be waived because thickner nozzle neck and flange are used, and the lateral expansion has to be measured per UHA-51(a)(2) in lieu of energy value. He could not find where you can take exemption at -20F. Would you mind pointing more detail in code II-A or D ?