Not logged inAmerican Welding Society Forum
Forum AWS Website Help Search Login
Up Topic Welding Industry / Metallurgy / Stainless Steel Weld Repair
- - By dredd Date 05-11-2010 16:42
How many weld repair cycles (thermal cycles) are allowed on austenitic stainless steel, specifically 316/316L? I was trained that weld repairs to austenitic stainless steel wrought material is limited to 3 due to the detrimental affects to the base material in the HAZ. The question is...from where does the repair cycle limit requirement originate? Is it a code requirement, a industry rule of thumb, an engineering decision, or a requirement at all?

Any help would be appreciated!
Parent - By G.S.Crisi (****) Date 05-11-2010 21:25
I'm anxious to read the answers to this post.
Giovanni S. Crisi
Sao Paulo - Brazil
Parent - - By MBSims (****) Date 05-11-2010 23:44
There is no hard and fast rule, just a rule of thumb.  I do not know of any code or regulatory requirement that places a limit on the number of repairs to a austenitic stainless steel weld.  Repairs to austenitic stainless steel may expose the heat affected zone to enough heat to cause chromium carbides to form along grain boundaries (sensitization).  Repairs can involve a number of scenarios of either removing weld metal only, weld metal and a portion of the HAZ, or the entire weld and HAZ.  So, the real answer is "it depends".  It depends on where the repair is, it depends on what the total heat input is, it depends on cooling rate, it depends on total time at sensitizing temperatures (800 F to 1500 F), it depends on base metal grade (e.g. 304 vs. 304L, 321, 347 316NG), it depends on carbon content of the base metal, it depends on whether solution annealing is performed after welding, ....  A qualification test for a repair procedure might be to "qualify" the total time at sensitizing temperatures on representative material using representative welding parameters and perform sensitization tests under ASTM A262 Practice A or E.
Parent - - By dredd Date 05-12-2010 12:44
Your reply confirms what I have found after two days of research. Although I am curious how this 'rule of thumb' has been around for so many years as an industry standard without a regulatory or code basis.

Thank you for the help.

Darrell Redd
New Mexico
Parent - By js55 (*****) Date 05-12-2010 13:25
I suppose it would stay around because it can be considered a reasonable practice. It doesn't find support in code bodies because any codified requirement would be too stringent for some applications and too lax for others. Not to mention that factors, as Marty pointed out, such as solution annealing can mitigate damage. It could quickly become very complicated.
Parent - By jrw159 (*****) Date 05-12-2010 14:29
I have seen this before, but only in the customer specifications. I do not believe code addresses it, but this would not be the first time I have been mistaken.

jrw159 :-)
Up Topic Welding Industry / Metallurgy / Stainless Steel Weld Repair

Powered by mwForum 2.29.2 © 1999-2013 Markus Wichitill