Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
BY R. K. BEZZANT A N D L. B. ENGEL
ABSTRACT. In nuclear power plants, All weldments passed the required some welds are slightly above the limit
welding often must be performed on pip- testing of ASME Section IX and the ad- of AWS D3.6. Specific welding tech-
ing systems that contain water. This oc- ditional impact testing of AWS D3.6. The niques were investigated to temper the
curs when the system cannot be isolated test data indicated that the weldments martensite in the HAZ and weld metal.
due to the piping configuration, plant made w i t h water backing exhibited no The use of these techniques provided
operating requirements or the failure of significant difference in tensile proper- marked improvement in the HAZ and
a component in the system. Water- ties when compared to welds made with- weld metal hardness.
backed welds are routinely made on out water backing. Both types of welds Water-backed SMA welds made on
austenitic stainless steels and are often exhibited no significant difference in ten- SA106 Gr. B pipe can meet the mechan-
preferred to prevent intergranular stress sile properties when compared to the ical testing requirements of ASME Sec-
corrosion cracking (IGSCC). However, nonwelded pipe, except for a minor loss tion IX and the additional requirements
welding on mild steel piping with water in ductility. Although the HAZ impact of AWS D3.6. If the proper welding se-
backing presents significant concerns as strength was lower in the water-backed quence is used on the water-backed SMA
to the integrity and serviceability of the welds when compared to welds made weldments, marked improvement in the
welds. This paper discusses the results without water, the lowest values still are HAZ and weld metal hardness can be
of testing that was performed on mild more than twice the required limit in achieved. SMA weldments made on
steel pipe to determine the fitness-for- AWS D3.6. SA106 Gr. B pipe w i t h water backing
service of water-backed shielded metal As expected, significantly more should perform satisfactorily in service
arc (SMA) weldments. martensite was found in the HAZ and as permanent weldments.
A variety of water-backed welds in weld metal of the water-backed welds
butt joints and fillet welds of different resulting in the increased hardness in Introduction
joint configurations and welding se- these areas. Some individual hardness
quences were made on 8-in. (203-mm) values found in the martensitic HAZ of As nuclear power plants age, there is
diameter, Schedule 80, SA106 Gr. B pipe an increasing need to make repairs or
with the shielded metal arc welding pro- modifications to piping systems that con-
cess using E7018 electrodes. The me- tain water. This often occurs when the
chanical properties and microstructure system cannot be isolated due to the pip-
of these welds were compared with iden- KEY W O R D S ing configuration, plant operating con-
tical welds made without water backing. ditions, or the failure of a component in
Mechanical testing was based upon the Pipe Welding
the system. Welding of water-filled pip-
requirements of Section IX of the ASME Water-Filled Pipe
ing does not present a problem for the
Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code. Con- Weld Water Backing
austenitic stainless steels, and is often
sideration was also given to the require- Nuclear Piping
specified to mitigate intergranular stress
ments of AWS D3.6 for Type A "dry Mild Steel Pipe
corrosion cracking (IGSCC). However,
welds." Fitness for Service
welding on water-filled mild steel pip-
SMAW/E7018 Electrode
ing can create hard, crack-sensitive areas
SA106Gr. B Pipe
R. K. BEZZANT is a Senior Materials and Spe- Stringer Bead Welding in the heat-affected zone (HAZ) and weld
cial Processes Engineer, Northern States Temper Bead Technique metal.
Power Co., Minneapolis, Minn. L. B. ENGEt During the planning phase of a repair
is a Consultant, Engel Metallurgical, St. requiring welding on water-filled SA106
Cloud, Minn. Gr. B pipe (Ref. 1), concern was ex-
pressed as to the fitness-for-service of the scope of AWS D3.6, many of the fac-
the water-backed welds. A literature re- tors affecting the weld quality and the
view produced no relevant information serviceability of a water-backed weld
with regard to this base metal and weld- are addressed in this code. W e l d Weld Metal Chemical Analysis
ing condition. The proprietary water- metal/HAZ toughness and ductility were
%2-in. Ifrin.
backed welding procedures previously considered to be of prime importance.
Element ER70S-2 E7018 E7018
used were complicated and difficult to Therefore, the Charpy impact test re-
apply. These procedures required pre- quirements and weld metal/HAZ hard- C 0.055% 0.06% 0.06%
cise bead placement and strict heat input ness limits required by this code were Mn 1.13% 1.28% 1.15%
controls, which could not be performed used as acceptance criteria. P 0.009% 0.017% 0.018%
by the average welder. The development S 0.008% 0.014% 0.009%
Using this information as a base, a
of an easier-to-apply welding procedure Si 0.46% 0.35% 0.23%
welding procedure qualification plan Cr 0.02% 0.04% 0.05%
was required. was developed for the welding of SA1 06 Ni 0.05% 0.04% 0.05%
To determine the fitness for service Gr. B pipe filled with ambient tempera- Mo <0.01% 0.01% 0.01%
of the water-backed welds that were to ture water to determine if: Cu 0.10% 0.02% 0.02%
be made, welding procedure qualifica- 1) Welds could be made that meet V <0.01% 0.01% 0.01%
tion would be performed to ASME Sec- the mechanical testing requirements of Fe Remainder Remainder Remainder
tion IX of the Boiler and Pressure Ves- ASME Section IX.
sel Code (Ref. 2), with additional test- 2) The impact toughness of the HAZ
ing specified by AWS D3.6, Specifica- and w e l d could be maintained above controls and would not require difficult
tion for Underwater Welding (Ref. 3). the 15 ft-lb (20 J) limit of AWS D3.6 weld bead placement techniques.
The testing conditions were to be rep- when tested at 0°F (-1 7.8°C).
resentative of conditions seen in the 3) The HAZ and weld metal hardness
field. Test Assembly Setup and
could be maintained below the 33 HRC
Procedure
The requirements of AWS D3.6 were limit of AWS D3.6.
chosen because they provide fabrica- 4) Simplified welding techniques,
tion and quality assurance standards for easily applied by the average welder, To determine the effect of water back-
underwater welding. Although the weld- could be used. These welding proce- ing on joint configurations that are typi-
ing to be performed did not fall within dures w o u l d eliminate the heat input cally encountered, nine separate weld-
ments were made using three different
joint configurations. To ascertain the ef-
fect of water backing on the various con-
-WELD #A
figurations, identical welds were made
_WELD #5 with and without water backing. Table
1 lists the joint geometries used and
whether water backing was present.
All welds were performed on 8-in.
WELD #7 -WELD # (203-mm) diameter, Schedule 80 pipe
T H E R M O _,
PROBE
(nominal 0.5-in./l 2 7 - m m wall thick-
ness). The pipe conformed to the re-
quirements of SA-1 06 Gr. B. The chem-
£ M
ical analysis of the pipe is shown in
Table 2.
All SMA welding was performed
using E7018 electrodes. All SMAW elec-
trodes were taken from new, unopened
hermetically sealed cans. After opening
the electrode cans, the E701 8 electrodes
HATER
were stored in portable ovens at 250° to
OUTLET 300°F (121°-149°C). The electrodes
TH ERMO _
PROBE
were removed from the portable ovens
_PI PE just prior to welding. A l l GTA welding
PLUG WATER_ was performed using ER70S-2 filler
1 / 2 - THICK- 8" BRANCH
R O L L E D BAR S T O C K CONNECTIONS INLET metal (Ref. 5). The chemical analyses of
the weld metals are shown in Table 2.
Fig. I — Test assembly for welding procedure qualification.
Branch Connections —
Welds 7, 8 and 9
Mechanical and
Metallurgical Tests
Listed below is a summary of the me-
procedure qualification, Welds 1 and 2 on Welds 1 and 2 as required by ASME
chanical, nondestructive, and metallur- were radiographed per the requirements Section IX.
gical tests performed on the weldments of ASME Section IX to determine the Fillet Weld Tests — Fillet weld tests
that indicates the welds to w h i c h they soundness of the weld metal. were performed on Welds 3, 4, 5 and 6
were applied. Reduced Section Tensile Test — as required by ASME Section IX. The
Transverse reduced section tensile tests specimens were sectioned, polished and
ASME Section IX — Welding and were performed on Welds 1 and 2 as re- etched with 2 % nital and examined with
Brazing Qualification
quired by ASME Section IX. the aid of a stereo microscope. The fil-
Radiography — Although not re- Guided Bend Tests — Transverse let weld size and contour requirements
quired by ASME Section IX for welding root and face bend tests were performed of ASME Section IX were not considered.
Groove welds
Groove Welds
Radiography — A review of the ra-
diographs of Welds 1 and 2 showed only
minor porosity and small slag inclu-
sions. Both welds met the acceptance
Rockwell Base Metal Coarse Grained HAZ i criteria of the code.
Hardness Fine Grained HAZ Weld Metal I
Reduced Section Tensile Tests —
Welds 1 and 2 each had two transverse
43C - reduced section tensile tests performed
as required by ASME Section IX. Each
38C AWS D3.6 Max. specimen met the acceptance criteria
Hardness 4, of the code. Table 6 lists the results of
33C these tests.
Guided Bend Tests — Welds 1 and
28C
2 each had reduced section transverse
23C-100B root and face bend tests performed as
required by ASME Section IX. After
95B bending, the specimens showed no
cracks or other defects and met the ac-
90B - • ceptance criteria of the code.
AWS D3.6 Charpy Impact Test —
85 B
The Charpy specimens tested from
80B Welds 1 and 2 had impact values well
above the m i n i m u m 15 ft-lb require-
75B ment of AWS D3.6. Table 7 lists the av-
erage results of the Charpy impact test-
70B ing.
Macro and Metallographic Examina-
1 2 3 4 5 6 tions— Metallographic examination of
Weld Number the base metal exhibited a typical fer-
ritic-pearlitic structure — Fig. 3. This
Fig. 5 — Microhardness testing results.
was typical for all samples observed.
A macro examination of Weld 1 (wa-
terbacked) showed no cracks or incom-
plete fusion, and only minor porosity
was noted. The H A Z was narrow and
very distinct — Fig. 4A. Metallographic
examination showed a HAZ consisting
of a fine-grained structure changing to
a coarse-grained structure containing
tempered martensite near the weld —
Fig. 4B and C.
A macro examination of Weld 2 (no
water backing) showed no cracks or in-
complete fusion and only a minor slag
inclusion near the root of the w e l d . A
wider, less distinct HAZ was observed
— Fig. 4 D . The metallographic exami-
nation shows a HAZ with a fine-grained
structure changing to a mixed structure
consisting of ferrite, pearlite and tem-
pered martensite near the weld — Fig.
4E and F.
Microhardness Test