Not logged inAmerican Welding Society Forum
Forum AWS Website Help Search Login
Up Topic Welding Industry / Technical Discussions / 1 1/4 Cr Mo Steel
- - By NDTIII (***) Date 11-06-2007 11:40
We are welding some 1 1/4 Cr Mo pipe. (SA-335-P11, P4 material) 1 1/2" thick. We found some welders welding without any preheat.

My question is, what kind of impact will this have on these welds besides delayed or cold cracking, if any?

If we radiograph them after PWHT and find no cracks is this ok or have the welds been affected metalurgically?
Parent - By Jim Hughes (***) Date 11-06-2007 13:31
I don't know what your position is, but if I were you I would stop them. Cracking is the main issue. I would find the WPS and see what it says about the preheat. Cracking will start in the tacks and then have the potential of propagating into the rest of the weld. Opperating temp and pressure will determine how quickly this joint will fail. Radiography will pick up the cracking, but I would PT the tacks and or the root. This will pick up any cracking.

Thanks
Jim
Parent - - By js55 (*****) Date 11-06-2007 14:52
NDTIII,
I think your approach of RT after PWHT is a reasonable disposition, and have practiced it myself on occasion when welders have been less than responsible.
The welds will not have been effected metallurgically to any great extent. Certainly not to the point of rendering them in any way unsuitable for service, if I understand the point of your question. The preheat is designed to minimize the risk of H induced cracking in an air hardenable bainitic microstructure.
Parent - - By CWI555 (*****) Date 11-06-2007 16:05
I would agree with the approach of volumetric NDE after the fact, but would say RT is not the best solution for planar flaw detection. If that is your primary concern, I would suggest UT.
Parent - By js55 (*****) Date 11-06-2007 17:02
Gerald,
I think thats a good suggestion. Especially to give an engineer a warm and fuzzy over concerns for cracks. Which is the issue here.
Parent - - By Jim Hughes (***) Date 11-06-2007 19:19
NDTIII,
as stated in my first post Radiography or UT as stated by CWI555 would be a good after the fact way to determine soundness of weld. But I would like to reinerate the WPS issue. If your welders violated the WPS and are still doing so then that needs to be addressed. A volumetic test does not resolve a WPS complience issue for those completed welds. ASME Sec. IX QW 406.1

Thanks
Jim
Parent - By Joseph P. Kane (****) Date 11-06-2007 21:29
Don't rely on your AI for a helpfull response.  If it is a new construction, he will sign off if the Hydro Test passes.
Parent - - By MBSims (****) Date 11-07-2007 04:16
These welds would be expected to have high hardness levels due to the higher cooling rates without preheat.  In addition to preventing hydrogen absorption, preheat slows the cooling rates to prevent high hardness levels.  If the hardness is too high, it is representative of decreased ductility.  It would be advisable to perform hardness testing of the weld metal and HAZ with a portable hardness tester at 4 locations around the circumference of the weld with 3 measurements per location.  Using the PWHT table in ASME B31.3 as a guide (even though it may not directly apply to the work), hardness should be below 235-240 Brinnell.  If the hardness exceeds this level, perform PWHT again to lower the hardness.  I have seen similar welds develop cracking after a year or two in service if hardness is too high.
Parent - - By NDTIII (***) Date 11-07-2007 06:45
Thanks guys. We are working to ASME B31.3 so RT after PWHT is mandatory for P4 materials. We will also do hardness testing.

We try to stop them but as soon as we walk away they go back to their normal practice. I am looking at some radiographs now. I'll let you know.
Parent - By Fredspoppy (**) Date 11-07-2007 14:00
NDTIII, et al,
All of the technical discussion regarding potential for hydrogen cracking, need for NDE after PWHT, etc is all well and good, and pertinent, BUT, we have a much bigger problem here.  If your company is building equipment to B31.3 and, even more, if you are an ASME Code shop, we have a serious problem.  Give this Forum thread to your AI and see what happens.  You won't be an AMSE Code shop for long!

You said "We try to stop them but as soon as we walk away they go back to their normal practice".  This is a serious problem and need to be addressed immediately.  You and your company can not afford (both from your reputation in the industry and financially) to allow this "normal practice" to continue.  The liability is just too great.  The management of your company needs to make sure that everyone (especially the welders, in this case) understand the importance of strict adherance to procedures and Code requirements.

When I hear this type of problem, I take it personal.  I have been involved in the "art and science of welding" for more than 40 years (I started in diapers, ha) and continually battle the attitude of many that "oh, its only welding, what difference does it make".  This is serious and could potentially cost lives.

Ok, I will get down from my soap box.  Good luck with your situation.  Keep us posted.
Parent - By Jim Hughes (***) Date 11-07-2007 15:20 Edited 11-07-2007 18:23
NDTIII,
are you working to a WPS? Does the WPS require pre-heat of this material? what is that pre-heat temp? A 100% voumetric test is not a cure all. I respecfully disagree with earlier posts that stated RT or UT was a proper disposition for this issue. If this were in my court I would NCR this issue and the disposition would be to cut the welds out and reistablish the WPS as the guiding influence of how future welds are made. It is not hard to pre-heat this material and maintain that pre-heat through out the welding process.

This post is meant to give you some food for thought, not to criticize what your doing:)

Thanks
Jim
Parent - - By js55 (*****) Date 11-07-2007 15:28
Marty,
Not necessarily disagreeing (because BHN testing is mandatory), but I doubt the difference in cooling rate between preheat and non preheat would manifest itself in hardness differences after PWHT if the PWHT is carried out at proper temps (1300 to 1375), unless there was a fundamental change in microstructure from bainitic to martensitic, which I doubt(though islands of martensite may be present-more likely in the root which saw the quickest chill but is also going to be tempered by the hot pass). And even then I think the lower alloy martensite would still respond to PWHT to an extent to provide hardnesses below the max requirement (below 225 BHN). If pre PWHT hardness were related to stress it would quickly respond to PWHT, if it were related to a martensitic microstructure the low alloy tempered martensite would still most likely manifest at <225. Even high alloy martensitic microstructures such as Grade 91 will commonly hit 230 to 250, well below the crack danger zone for that highly crack sensitive alloy.
Parent - - By NDTIII (***) Date 11-07-2007 15:54
Thanks again guys for the valuable information. I am trying to convince everyone how serious this is. The WPS requires preheat and a NCR hsbeen generated, however it continues. I recommended cutting the welds out. We'll see.
Parent - By js55 (*****) Date 11-07-2007 16:36
NDTIII,
I am assuming your manual states that QC has the power to stop work. This is something to seriously consider. Also, the risk for personal inury from failures is real with this alloy and needs to be emphsized to management who should have the power to enforce code requirements on production. Also, make sure thine own azz is covered.
Parent - - By MBSims (****) Date 11-10-2007 05:04 Edited 11-10-2007 05:07
We do a lot of hardness testing of P11, P12, P22 and P91 in-service welds and repair welds for remaining life assessment and fitness for service.  We have had a couple of heavy-wall large diameter P11 welds to Y-block fittings crack from what appeared to be insufficient preheat.  P22 and P91 welds do seem to generate much higher hardness levels, as high as 310 HB for P91 and 270 for P22 after a "code minimum" PWHT.  After finding a few post-PWHT cracks and high hardness levels, we decided to always perform MT and hardness checks on P22 and P91 girth welds after PWHT.  I agree it is less likely on P11, but it is certainly possible to form martensite with rapid cooling rates if one looks at the martensite start (Ms) temperature and cooling rate needed on a CCT diagram for P11.  A 250-300 F preheat slows the cooling rate enough to prevent hitting the Ms temp before bainite or pearlite formation is complete.  When dealing with steam piping that operates at temps up to 1000 F where people have to walk around it in operation, it is best to take the extra steps to make sure it is safe, even if the "Code" does not require it.
Parent - - By NDTIII (***) Date 11-25-2007 07:31 Edited 11-25-2007 07:33
Thanks again everyone, but I have another question. Preheat is required. However, is preheat maintenance normally required for this material? (A335, Gr. P11) P No. 4? Thickness from 1 1/2" to 2".
Parent - - By MBSims (****) Date 11-25-2007 15:47
If by "preheat maintenance" you mean not allowing the temperature to fall below the minimum until welding is complete, the answer is yes.  If you mean does preheat have to be maintained after the weld is completed until postweld heat treatment is performed, the answer is no.
Parent - - By 803056 (*****) Date 11-25-2007 17:14 Edited 11-26-2007 17:50
I agree with Fred and a couple of others that have responded. If the WPS specifies preheat, preheat is required and the minimum preheat temperature has to be maintained until the welding stops.

PWHT will not typically defuse the issue if there is a problem with the microstructure, i.e., be it martensitic or bainitic. Unless the PWHT is high enough to transform the microstructure back to austenite and the cooling cycle controlled, the microstructure may see little benefit through carbide precipitation. It may be harder and may still lack the ductility expected. Depending on the lag time between the completion of welding and the PWHT, sufficient time may have lapsed to permit delayed cracking to initiate.  The cracks may be small enough that the radiography will fail to detect them. Any subsequent PWHT will be of little value once the fissures have initiated.

There are a lot of details we don't know in this situation, so anything suggested or recommended would be purely speculative and conjecture.

As the inspector, I would not accept the work. Document what was or wasn't done and turn the problem over to a metallurgist for resolution. I hesitate to say "refer the problem to a welding engineer" because may individuals are given the title without the training or understanding of metallurgical principles. In any event I would consider this to be a major management issue if the welders are ignoring the requirements of the WPS. If I was the third party inspector representing the owner, I would not accept the work and recommend that the owner required it to be replaced. Nothing speaks louder than the financial repercussions of replacing or repairing work. At the very least, I would strongly recommend the owner require a WPS be qualified using the parameters used in producing the suspect welds. Once again, the words of the inspector clearly poses little threat to the welders, but the financial burden and the inconvenience of qualifying the procedure will get their undivided attention. When it (the PQR) fails to pass the required tests, you will have ample grounds to reject the work.


Good luck in finding resolution. This could be a very serious problem.

Best regards - Al
Parent - By ZCat (***) Date 11-25-2007 23:12
something that thick needs heating coils on it. that would solve your problem with the welders controlling the preheat.
Parent - - By Bonniweldor (**) Date 11-26-2007 15:10
No preheat of thick P11 will result in martensite and bainite in weld and HAZ.  These will be tempered by subsequent PWHT, assuming nomal practice.  Fast cool results in finer microstructure and with subsequent PWHT may result in improved toughness, versus normal practice; still this may be marginal in improvement or importance.

What I see the principle problems with no preheat is breach of contract and introduction of hydrogen cracks, which can be below the threshold of detectability, but still contribute to reduced life in service, since the crack inititiation period is removed.  If the weldor's skimp on preheat, what other hydrogen control practices are they skimping on?

If parts are put in funace below 200F (to transform all austenite) and before 100F (time before metal gets too cool) immediately after welding, then there may not be sufficient time for cracks to form, but this requires controls and direct attention.  Otherwise, wait 2-3 days before doing UT before PWHT; use 3 angles of tranducers (45, 60, 70), use 1/16 FBH as reference reflector; compare PWHT control to non PWHT.  Make weldors pay for any cracked weld/HAZ rework.
Parent - - By 803056 (*****) Date 11-26-2007 18:06
One thought just came to mind. Why not weld a sample using the welding conditions observed and do a simple bend test after allowing for a 24 to 48 hour incubation period. Should delayed hydrogen cracking be a problem, the incubation period should be sufficient to allow them to initiate. The bend test will provide you some indication of the material's ductility or loss of ductility and if there are any small cracks due to hydrogen, they should reveal themselves when the coupon breaks or cracks. The issue is to make the welders use exactly the same techniques as they are using in production.

A good dog and pony show usually gets the welders attention. Most welders are trying to do their best work, but things that aren't readily apparent to them often are overlooked or ignored. Sometimes it is easier to demonstrate the importance of a proper technique than it is to explain it to the welders. It will also leave a lasting impression on them that they will carry through-out their career.

I've several demonstrations that I let the welders do. I let them draw their own conclusions once the test results are in. One demonstration is a multiple pass fillet weld versus a single pass weave fillet weld. The other is the diffusible hydrogen test. One demonstration that I've added is the arc-strike bent test described by our friend John Wright. Oh yea, there's also the push (forehand) versus the pull (backhand) technique for welding aluminum with GMAW spray.

My old engineer friend once told me, "you can always tell a welder, but you can't tell him much." I agree with him, but I have found out that if you can show "it" to a welder, he'll never forget what he saw.

Best regards - Al
Parent - By DaveBoyer (*****) Date 11-27-2007 03:43
Al, there is a lot of truth in that last paragraph.
Parent - - By darren (***) Date 12-02-2007 06:20
hey al could you elaborate on the multipass/weave thing as i don't know the conclusion of it and am interested in the results.  i don't weld aluminum but would be interested in the results of that test as well
and have you ever tried to tell an engineer or a weld inspector anything, that doesn't go so well either ;)
thanks
darren
Parent - - By 803056 (*****) Date 12-03-2007 01:13
The fillet weld demonstration is usually performed with carbon steel. The demonstration is a simple T-joint fillet break test as described in D1.1. It usually comes about after asking the ago old question, "Which is "stronger" a single pass weave bead or multiple stringer beads that produce the same size weld?"

There are two samples welded. One sample is made with a single pass 5/16 inch fillet weld (i.e., both legs are 5/16 inch). I find that most welders are forced to use a weave in order to make the proper sized weld. There is also some technique involved so as not to have incomplete fusion in the root (i.e., bridging the root).

The second sample is welded and the resulting weld size is 5/16 inch. The welders are directed to use three stringers on the second sample.

The test position isn't a big variable. 5/16 inch fillets can be made in all positions by welders with adequate skill, but typically the samples are deposited in either the flat or vertical positions.

After the welds have cooled to room temperature the fun begins. Each welder has the opportunity to break the weld either with repeated blows from a sledge hammer or with a hicky and long handle. Over the years the results is always the same. Once again it is important to compare apples to apples. So the welds have to pass the visual examination before being fractured and they have to be fused to the root in order to be a valid test. Likewise, the comparison is only valid if the weld sizes are comparable. A 3/8 fillet compared to a 5/16 fillet that is on the small size isn't a good comparison.

I'm not going to give you the results. That takes all the fun out of the comparison, but let me warn you that the difference is clearly evident and 99 out of 100 welders will draw the same conclusion once the comparison is done. 

I've done the test with aluminum GMAW. The results are not comparable to carbon steel due to the fact the metallurgy is different and heat treatable aluminums are time at temperature sensitive.

I'm not sure how to answer the last question you ask. I guess the best reply is to say that all my observations are written in my reports. Questions that I have about the project are always in writing and rarely do I do something in an informal manner. All questions directed to the engineer are also included in the reports that are distributed to the owner, general contractor, building official, etc. Those questions require a written response. I don't tell other parties "how to do" anything unless I'm asked. As the third party inspector, I am the eyes and ears of the engineer of record and the owner. I am not the fabricator's consultant unless they are the party that retained my services. I found out long ago that I'm not nearly as smart as I would like to be. Whether working with a fabricator, welder, or engineer, the secret is knowing how to ask the right question so that the response produces the desired outcome.

Unless someone asks for help or an opinion, unsolicited help is usually perceived as offensive. It's as if you are saying, "Hey stupid, you're doing it wrong! This is how you should do it!" Unsolicited help is not usually well received even if your motives are well intended. Whether you are working with welders, mechanics, or engineers, you'll get a better response if you can make your point in the form of a question rather than a statement of fact.

Best regards - Al
Parent - - By darren (***) Date 12-03-2007 01:43
good advice about the question aspect of information dissemination. will use that one as often as i can remember it. the carbon steel test seems obvious in that "bridging the root" yields no penetration so the fillet would just break when bent against itself.
the last part is that I've often tried to inform the "informed" about some sort of anomaly while the weld was taking place or a way of making the process easier and more often then not after they give you that "did you just say what i thought you said look" they tell you to just do it their way.
i must be getting older because i experience this less and less and with the advent of your 'inform through query technique' i think that will receive even better results.
darren
Parent - By js55 (*****) Date 12-05-2007 15:26
'inform through query technique' ?

Isn't that Socrates?
Somehow I always supected Al of having spent at least some of his time reading the old classics.
Always tryin to elevate folks outa the cave.

:>)
Up Topic Welding Industry / Technical Discussions / 1 1/4 Cr Mo Steel

Powered by mwForum 2.29.2 © 1999-2013 Markus Wichitill