CRACKING AND INSPECTION OF STAINLESS STEEL SUCTION ROLLS Craig Reid, P.Eng.

Bacon Donaldson Consulting Engineers Richmond, B.C., CANADA V7A 4V4 ABSTRACT Existing laboratory data on the initiation and growth of corrosion fatigue cracks in stainless steel suction roll alloys is summarized and compared with observations from case histories of cracking in centrifugally cast martensitic and duplex stainless steel suction press rolls. Crack initiation in the martensitic stainless steel roll occurred at corrosion pits inside the drilled holes. In the duplex stainless steel rolls, crack initiation occurred at foundry weld repairs. The crack growth rates were very similar to those predicted by a simple fatigue model. More data from cracked rolls is, however, needed before calculations based on laboratory studies can be used to reliably predict crack growth rates. Baseline inspections of new rolls for imperfections near the critical size for crack initiation are required, as are carefully documented in service inspections to detect the onset of crack growth and trend crack growth rates.

INTRODUCTION This goal of this paper is to discuss cracking and inspection of stainless steel suction rolls with emphasis on duplex stainless steels, which are now most commonly used on paper machines. Although many bronze and martensitic stainless steel suction rolls are still in service, these alloys are now seldom used for medium size paper machines and are not used for wide paper machines. Even on pulp machines, where bronze or martensitic stainless steel suction rolls frequently give 20 years operating time, there is a tendency to purchase duplex stainless steel replacement rolls to add an extra margin against corrosion and cracking. The eventual failure mode of duplex stainless steel suction rolls is corrosion fatigue, therefor the mechanical design of suction rolls is based on the corrosion fatigue strength of the alloy to be used. The nominal design life is typically 109 cycles, thus the nominal operating life of a suction roll depends on the machine speed and efficiency and the diameter of the roll. For example a suction press roll on a 1000 m/min machine might accumulate 107 cycles per month, for an expected service life of 100 months (8 years). It must be realized, however, that there will be a statistical distribution of the time to normal corrosion fatigue cracking about the 109 cycle value. A few rolls will provide a much longer life to cracking while, unfortunately, a few rolls will provide a much shorter life to cracking. What might be termed premature cracking may occur due to operational misadventure (e.g. overheating) or manufacturing defects. There will be a gray area between premature cracking due to these causes and early corrosion fatigue cracking due to statistical distribution about the nominal design life. For example, if cracking was observed in a roll after 0.5 X 109 cycles would it be accepted as statistical variation, or would an investigation be performed to look for manufacturing defects or operational problems? The primary purpose of regular inspection of suction rolls for cracking is to ensure that cracking is detected in time to schedule replacement roll purchase without risking unplanned down time when the cracked roll eventually becomes inoperable. Due to the possibility of premature cracking, it is desireable that a baseline inspection be performed before a new roll is run, or at least after its first service campaign. Should premature cracking occur, the baseline inspection can remove speculation about purchased versus grown cracks. Inspection should be repeated at regular intervals throughout the life of the roll. For current duplex stainless steels regular inspection can permit reasonably accurate trending of crack growth.

GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR INSPECTION TAPPI TIP 0402-19 Guidelines for the nondestructive examination of suction roll shells covers general considerations for suction roll inspection and should be reviewed by mill personnel responsible for the reliability of suction rolls. It is important for inspection that the roll be clean and dry and located where inspector discomfort will not influence the sensitivity of the inspection. Where penetrant testing is to be used it is very important that: fibre deposits be removed from the suction holes the roll be dry the roll be at, and preferably above, room temperature

If the roll is wet, penetrant cannot enter cracks in the first place. Even if the roll is initially dry, excessive fibre deposits inside holes can trap water and penetrant which then bleed out onto the test surface. In extreme cases, such bleed out can make penetrant inspection impractical. If the roll is too cold then penetrant is slow to enter cracks and impractically long dwell times are needed to obtain adequate test sensitivity. TIP 0402-19 provides detailed information on common test techniques such as colour contrast liquid penetrant testing , fluorescent penetrant testing, and magnetic particle testing. Generally mill personnel rely on the nondestructive testing technician to perform the test properly according to standard procedures, Some mills rely on the technician to choose the test technique. It is therefor important that the test technician be experienced in inspecting suction rolls and, if a new inspection company or technician is involved in suction roll testing, the mill person responsible should review the test technicians qualifications and experience. The TIP is a useful guide for such a review. It is very important that the inspection report documents the condition of the roll in sufficient detail that comparison with previous and subsequent examinations will permit trending of the rate of any deterioration. Features and indications revealed by the examination should be plotted to scale on a drawing of the shell and described in detail. Locations of indications should be plotted in relation to a reference mark, such as the roll serial number, so that they can be located again during subsequent examinations. If cracking or corrosion pitting is found over large areas, the size of these areas should also be indicated. Detail of specific areas can be documented photographically (including a scale) or with a pencil rubbing. By reporting the number of suction holes joined or ligaments crossed, cracks found during an examination can be followed in subsequent inspections. For reporting purposes indications can generally be grouped into four classifications: cracks corrosion (e.g. pits, hole enlargement, surface roughness) mechanical damage (e.g. grooves, impact marks, gouges) manufacturing defects (e.g. porosity, inclusions, shrinkage)

The TIP provides suggested report formats and these are included as Figures 1 and 2 of this paper. The extent of inspection including the absence of a specific condition should be noted - e.g. the inside surface was visually surveyed for pitting and mechanical damage, none was found. If the particular condition is found on a subsequent inspection this will prevent confusion about when the condition occurred.

NON DESTRUCTIVE TEST TECHNIQUE Stainless steel suction roll alloys have been evolving over the last 30 years and an operating paper machine could have rolls in several alloys. Table 1 lists currently available stainless steel suction roll alloys, sorted by type. Table 2 lists alloys now considered obsolete. When planning inspection of a stainless steel suction roll it is important to determine if the roll is a duplex or martensitic stainless steel. Martensitic stainless steels are often inspected by the wet fluorescent magnetic particle technique (WFMT) while this technique is generally not recommended for inspection of duplex stainless steels. In duplex stainless steels, WFMT indications are obtained from the boundaries between the non magnetic austenite phase and the magnetic ferrite phase. This can make it difficult to distinguish cracks from grain boundaries, especially in cast duplex stainless steel rolls which have a larger grain size than rolled and welded duplex stainless steel rolls.. TIP 0402-19, recommends water washable fluorescent PT for inspection of all stainless steel suction rolls because this technique is applicable to both martensitic and duplex stainless steel shells and is perceived to be quicker than colour contrast PT (red dye). In the authors experience colour contrast PT is more commonly used for inspection of duplex stainless steel suction rolls and the test time is not significantly different from that for inspection by wet fluorescent PT. One advantage of colour contrast PT is that indications remain visible for photographic documentation and for direct examination by mill personnel. Large scale bleed out from fibre deposits inside holes can limit the time available to evaluate indications before they are obscured by the bleedout. Thus it restricts the size of areas which can be developed , interpreted, and documented. This increases the inspection time. In extreme cases of fibre deposits in holes and/or where the roll is not dry, PT may not be possible. WFMT has been used for inspection of centrifugally cast duplex stainless steel suction rolls when the mill involved was unable to provide rolls clean and dry enough for PT. The concentration of magnetic particles in the carrier was adjusted so that grain boundaries produced fine diffuse indications while cracks produced wider stronger indications. This technique was validated by inspection of a VK-A171 suction roll that had become un-runnable due to several axial cracks. It was generally found that cracks which extended through more than one ligament could be readily distinguished from grain boundary indications without requiring unreasonable concentration by the inspector. However, as illustrated in Figures 3 and 4, it was sometimes difficult to distinguish between a crack and a grain boundary. Thus it would be possible to: interpret grain boundaries as short cracks, e.g. the bright indication on the right hand side of hole 1 in Figure 3 interpret short cracks as grain boundaries, e.g. the PT indication between holes 6 and 7 in Figure 4, gave no WFMT indication and appears to be coming from a grain boundary (perhaps cracks in cast duplex stainless steel suction rolls initiate at grain boundaries)

In view of these observations it would be difficult to be consistent from inspection to inspection, especially if testing was performed by different technicians. For example, 8 one ligament cracks were reported during WFMT of a suction press roll. On the next scheduled inspection, 27 operating months later, careful examination for crack growth revealed only two of the 8 indications were cracks (see case history no. 4 below). One machine builder has also reported the use of visual inspection for cracks in duplex stainless steel suction rolls. A grid is laid out in the roll and angled light is used to highlight cracks. Cracks can be documented photographically or by video. The skill and patience of the inspector are important in this approach. It may be useful to include it in the next revision of the TIP 0402-19, especially if it is validated

by PT reinspection of one or more rolls in which cracking is found; as a check that cracks have not been missed by either technique. FREQUENCY OF INSPECTIONS During original development of the TIP 402-19, it was not possible to reach a consensus on frequency of inspection. Insurance company representatives tended to favor frequent inspections while operating company representatives did not want to be locked in by a TAPPI document which could be perceived as an industry standard. The unpredictability of suction roll service (bearing failures, cover damage, priority of paper making over inspection) often makes it difficult to adhere to a rigid schedule. As noted in the Introduction, baseline inspection of a new roll should be performed before it is installed, or if a new roll is received assembled, then after the first service campaign. Thereafter it seems reasonable to inspect press rolls every 12 operating months and non-nipped rolls every 36 operating months. Some mills inspect press rolls every 24 operating months but experience discussed in the Case Histories section, has shown it is prudent to reduce this interval to 6 months or less once cracks are found (the appropriate inspection interval will vary on a case-by-case basis). The current revision of the TIP 0402-19 includes the relationship below which was used one company to set the inspection interval of uncracked shells. Actual running time between inspections = (rounded to the next integer year) 500 roll speed (rpm) + 0.2 X maximum nip load (pli)

If this relationship is applied to a suction press roll operating at 400 pli (70 kN/m) on a 3280 fpm (1,000 m/min) machine the resulting inspection interval is 1.47 years which, if rounded up, yields two years and, if rounded down, yields one year. As a compromise one might choose an 18 month inspection interval. Once cracking is found, TIP 0402-19 recommends adjustment of the inspection interval and advises that advice be sought from the machine builder or a qualified consultant. Unfortunately it is not currently possible to predict crack growth rates accurately and the discovery of cracking often triggers removal of the cracked roll from service and also immediate purchase of a replacement roll. The cracked roll is retained for service as an emergency spare until the replacement roll arrives. The emergency spare may, however, be run for significant operating times if, for example, the installed roll must be removed for recovering or for other reasons like bearing failure. Thus depending on the particular situation some idea of crack growth rate can be desirable in order to determine the: urgency of replacement roll purchase inspection interval for the cracked roll in order to time its final removal

In North America, machine builders have been reluctant to estimate the remaining life of cracked rolls due to both the technical uncertainties involved and the risk of litigation if they are wrong and a roll becomes un-runnable in service. Nevertheless, a machine builders opinion should be sought once cracking is discovered. A second opinion can also be obtained from qualified consultants. The next section addresses some of the technical considerations involved. CRITICAL CRACK SIZE AND CRACK GROWTH RATES It is known from experience, and from fracture mechanics considerations that: crack like flaws, and cracks, below a critical size should not grow

short cracks grow very slowly at first but the growth rate increases as the crack extends

Corrosion fatigue crack growth can be related to the stress intensity at the tip of a crack-like flaw (i.e. sharp tipped) or an actual crack. In simplified terms the stress intensity is related to the tensile stress acting at the crack tip by: K = F ( a) 1/2 Where: K = alternating stress intensity, MPa m F = a geometric factor which depends on the shape of the flaw or crack and whether it is embedded or intersects a free surface. = alternating tensile stress, MPa

For order of magnitude calculations, the geometric factor is often taken to be one; even though the value of F will change somewhat as the crack grows The threshold K for growth of a crack or crack-like flaw by corrosion fatigue, Kth, is considered to be a material property similar to corrosion fatigue strength or yield strength. Thus, in theory, Kth, could be determined by testing, and used to compare suction roll alloys. Once a crack has started to grow its rate of growth can be related to K by an equation of the form: da/dN = C K m Where: da/dN = crack growth increment per cycle, m/cycle C, m = experimentally determined constants Again, C and m are considered to be material constants and thus could be used to compare suction roll alloys. Laboratory testing has been performed to determine Kth and the crack growth parameters, C and m, for various suction roll alloys. However, due to: significant experimental complications in determining these parameters, and the difficulty of extending crack growth calculations to the complicated geometry and stress situation of a suction roll,

it has not been possible to date to correlate the test results with the known performance of various alloys and to accurately calculate the growth of cracks in actual suction rolls. Validation of theoretical and laboratory results would require statistically adequate information on the operating time to cracking of different alloys, crack growth information from full size test coupons (i.e. suction rolls), and metallurgical examination of cracked rolls. Unfortunately cracking of suction rolls is not consistently reported. Failure analysis of cracked rolls is seldom done because of the cost and, when done, is usually not openly reported. More case histories are needed of actual crack growth behavior but once a spare is available owners are generally unwilling to run cracked rolls to aid in the advancement of knowledge. Nevertheless some aspects of the laboratory testing are worth reviewing because they do provide a qualitative understanding of crack behaviour in suction rolls.

The fracture mechanics test coupon commonly used to determine corrosion fatigue crack growth rates and Kth is shown in the upper left of Figure 5 ref. 1. A notch is machined in the coupon and a sharp crack is initiated at the base of the notch by high frequency mechanical fatigue. The pre-cracked coupon is then tested in white water at a frequency judged to be simulate the suction roll rotational frequency of approximately 5 Hz, and at a stress ratio, R = min/max, judged to represent the stress cycle in a suction roll. The effect of residual tensile stress is incorporated by setting min > 0 so the stress cycle becomes tension - tension rather than tension - compression. Kth is determined by reducing K until the crack stops growing. Since the test specimen has a simple geometry, the geometric factor, F, can be calculated. Figure 5 also shows the variation of this factor with crack length in the test specimen. The lower right side of Figure 5 shows a modified test piece used to study re-initiation of corrosion fatigue cracking on the opposite side of drilled holes. As a crack grew in this specimen it intersected holes drilled ahead of it. Figure 6 ref. 1 shows typical results obtained for VK-A171, an early cast duplex stainless steel suction roll alloy. A large number of cycles were needed to re-initiate the crack on the opposite side of hole #1 but as the crack became longer, progressively fewer cycles were needed for re-initiation in holes #2 and #3, and the crack grew faster in the ligaments between the holes. Note also that the crack was 25 mm long when it reached hole #1. This work explains why a one ligament crack in a suction press roll (which will be only a few mm long) may take years to re-initiate on the other side of the two holes joined. Note, however, that if a small crack already existed on the other side of the hole, the re-initiation time could approach zero. Figure 7 ref. 2 shows more recent work to compare crack growth rates of two current centrifugally cast duplex stainless steels. Alloy A exhibits lower crack growth rates and a higher Kth than Alloy B and thus, in theory, Alloy A should be superior to Alloy B. To date, however both alloys, have good service records and, for the reasons noted above, a clear correlation of service experience with test data may never emerge. The Suction Roll Subcommittee of the TAPPI Engineering Division has in the past attempted to promote a uniform approach to testing but no consensus has been reached on standard techniques or environments. Thus there is no single test series that compares all the currently available suction roll alloys and data from different test series is difficult to compare. For example, the test frequency in Figure 7 was 15 Hz, which is somewhat higher than the 5 Hz rotational frequency typical of suction rolls. Higher test frequencies allow less time for the environment to affect crack growth during each cycle and can lead to higher values for Kth and lower crack growth rates. Ideally, to facilitate comparison of data, all corrosion fatigue test work would be conducted with similar procedures, at the same frequency, and in the same white water composition. Even then, interlaboratory differences in this type of testing can be significant so a round robin test program would be needed to confirm the test procedures. It is unlikely such work will be done given the competitive nature of suction roll production. Kth values have been published based on comparison of data obtained under nominally identical test conditions (except for frequency) by different laboratories. ref. 3 Despite the complications noted above, these were used to calculate critical defect lengths for corrosion fatigue crack growth in suction roll alloys (Table 3). For this purpose the alternating stress, , was assumed to be 55 MPa (7,700 psi), which is in a reasonable range for suction roll design (allowable stresses are considered proprietary by machine builders and are not released). The effect of test frequency and stress ratio on Kth, and thus critical crack length, are evident from the table.

Table 3. Comparison of critical crack lengths at = 55 MPa. Critical Crack Length (mm) = ( a) 1/2 A centrifugally cast 25 0.1 11 12.7 A centrifugally cast 25 0.5 8 6.7 A centrifugally cast 15 0.1 10 10.5 B centrifugally cast 15 0.1 6 3.8 C rolled and welded 25 0.1 3 1 Note: the critical defect sizes in the table are based on an assumption that the defect intersects a drilled hole. The critical defect size for an embedded defect would be twice as long. Kth MPa m1/2 Test Conditions: ClSO42S2O32200 ppm 500 ppm 50 ppm pH T 3.5 50C Alloy Type Test Frequency (Hz) stress ratio R = min/max

The data above should not necessarily be considered as proving Alloy A is superior to the other alloys. The data has been questioned on a theoretical basis and must, in addition, be considered on the basis of service experience. For example, although the maximum acceptable length of slag inclusions in Alloy B is 5 mm, and thus exceeds the suggested critical crack length, this alloy has a good service record to date. Similarly, although Alloy C has a lower critical crack length, the manufacturing method leads to very small defect sizes and this alloy also has a good record. The laboratory data can, however, be useful as a guide to setting acceptable defect sizes for the purchase of new rolls. Even then it must be remembered that the fracture mechanics calculations assume a defect is sharp - blunt defects are not as effective in crack initiation. Thus slag inclusions and porosity which do not have sharp tips could, in theory, exceed the critical crack size without initiating cracking. Figure 8, for example, shows a remnant slag inclusion after grinding casting defects out of an Alloy B suction transfer roll. The remnant defect is 1.7 mm long and is blunt tipped. Given the critical length for a sharp defect of 3.8 mm it should not be a corrosion fatigue crack initiation site CASE HISTORIES The case histories which follow, illustrate some of the concepts of crack initiation and growth discussed above and emphasize the need for correlation of theory with service experience. They also demonstrate the value of baseline inspection and metallurgical examination of rolls in case premature cracking (defined as < 0.5 X 109 cycles?) occurs. No. 1 Circumferential Cracking of a CA-15 Suction Press Roll The press roll became un-runnable after 56 months operating time. The operating and inspection history is summarized below. After cracking was discovered, the inspection interval was reduced from 2 years to 3-4 months, however, a known 100 mm (6 ligament crack) grew to 1.35 m (53) in 77 operating days - i.e. within the 3 month inspection interval. Note there was some inconsistency in inspection results - a 100 mm crack found after 47 months was not reported on the 50 month inspection. This emphasizes the need for technicians doing inspection to review previous inspection reports.

Accumulated Running Time (months) 23 37 47 50 54 56

Inspection Results no cracks 1 one ligament crack 1 100 mm crack 5 one ligament cracks 1 50 mm crack 5 one ligament cracks 2 100 mm ligament cracks 8 other cracks 1.35 m (53) long circumferential crack roll not runnable

The crack growth rate curve was calculated as a function of time by numerically integrating the equation da/dN = C K m. Values for the constants C and m were obtained from the literature ref.1 and the simplified analysis neglected the presence of the holes - i.e. re-initiation on the other side of a hole was assumed to be instantaneous. The value of was arrived at by repeating the calculation with different assumed values of until the crack growth curve matched the time between the last inspection and the failure. The effective value of was found to be 28 MPa (4,100 psi) which appeared to be a reasonable value. Figure 9 shows the calculated growth rate curve as well as the actual crack lengths from inspections. The actual growth rate exceeded that expected from the calculations but the form of the curve was as expected. The form of Figure 9 should apply to other suction roll alloys. It is assumed there will be three basic stages of crack growth: a long period of crack initiation - presumably at defects if cracking is premature a relatively long period of slow growth - during slow growth, crack re-initiation time at the other side of holes will determine the crack growth rate a relatively short period of rapid growth - during this period re-initiation time on the other side of holes is essentially zero

No.2 Circumferential Cracking of a CA-15 Suction Press Roll Case history No.2 differs from No.1 in that the shell had accumulated approximately 2 X 109 cycles of operation and thus exceeded the nominal design life. Accurate records of service periods were not available but the inspection record is summarized below. Date 85 Sep 86 Jan 86 Nov 87 Jul 88 Jul 89 Mar Inspection Results no cracks no cracks 8 cracks near back side no change > 100 longitudinal cracks at front side up to 4 ligaments long some new cracks back side and mid length un-runnable 2.2 m (85) circumferential crack at 1/3 length Failure did not occur at a previously known crack site

The roll had been re-installed after the July 1988 inspection, likely because individual cracks did not exceed 4 ligaments and were longitudinal. The date of re-installation after the July 1988 inspection was not reported, thus the running time to the failure is not know accurately.

A ring was cut from the failed roll which contained the circumferential crack and the crack was broken open for examination. It was found the crack was longer on the inside surface of the shell than on the outside. The crack front on the inside led the crack front on the outside surface by four suction holes. Examination of the fracture surface revealed widespread corrosion pitting inside the drilled holes with small fatigue cracks located at the pits (Figure 10). The presence of small fatigue cracks inside all of the holes meant that once the initial circumferential crack extended through one ligament it immediately re-initiated at the a pre-existing fatigue crack - i.e. there was no time spent in the slow growth stage. This mode of cracking was not anticipated at the time of the July 1988 inspection or the roll would not have been re-installed. Presumably a modern duplex stainless steel alloy would not be at risk to skip the slow growth stage in this manner since the much greater corrosion resistance of the modern alloys should prevent widespread pitting, unless the white water is unusually aggressive. However, when evaluating the fitness for continued service of any cracked stainless steel suction roll it would be advisable to consider the number of cycles the roll has accumulated, the number of cracks, and the corrosivity of the white water. Borescope inspection can be performed to check for pitting, however, such inspections are not necessarily straightforward since the as-drilled surfaces of holes can contain pitlike defects from drilling. A baseline inspection of a new roll might well include borescope examination of a few holes to confirm the finish of the drilled holes. No.3 CA-15 Suction Press Roll on a Pulp Machine A one ligament crack was discovered on regular inspection. The roll was original with the machine and thus was over 20 years old. It was unspared. No other cracks were found on the inside surface of the covered roll. Borescope examination in the holes intersecting the crack did not reveal pitting and the crack was only 12 mm deep. Stress analysis of the roll according to the procedures in TAPPI TIP 0402-10 Guide for the evaluation of paper machine suction roll shells showed the roll was lightly loaded. Fracture mechanics analysis suggested the crack would not grow - i.e. the stress intensity was very low. Chemical analysis showed the white water was not corrosive, even to CA-15. Despite these facts the mills insurer required purchase of a replacement roll. Based on the long service of the original roll and the low corrosivity of the white water, CA-15 was specified for the replacement. A baseline PT inspection was performed at the foundry. The cracked roll was run for another year and repeat inspection showed the crack had not grown in length or depth. It would be desireable to continue to run this roll as a test specimen but that decision remains up to the mill. No. 4 VK-A378 Suction Press Roll The inspection history of this roll is summarized below and shown graphically in Figure 9. It was possible to calculate the actual number of cycles operated because accurate records existed of daily machine speed and down time. The inspection interval for this roll was two running years. Eight one ligament cracks were found on the first inspection after only 1.26 X 108 cycles of operation (approximately 12% of the design life). The inspection was done using WFMT.

On the next inspection all indications were evaluated by microscopic examination and only two were confirmed as cracking. Both were located in a foundry weld repair as shown in Figure 11. The inspection interval was changed to one year. After the next service period of 9 months there was no crack growth but, after a further 9 month period, the two cracks had coalesced and significant growth had occurred. Figure 12 shows the crack ran both circumferentially and longitudinally. The roll was relegated to use as an emergency spare and a replacement roll was ordered. Only 53% of the design life had been obtained. The roll was run for two short additional periods and was re-inspected after each one in order to determine if it could be used again. Some crack extension was found after the first 14 day running period but not after the following 10 day running period. Figure 13 is a diagram showing the stages of crack growth. Once the replacement roll arrived the mill was not interested in further fracture mechanics testing and the full sized coupon was scrapped. A metallurgical examination was not performed, however, residual stress measurement by hole drilling suggested the weld repair had been stress relieved. This result left some unresolved questions about: the adequacy of the stress relief procedure the inherent corrosion fatigue resistance of the weld filler metal the presence of subsurface cracks in the weld repair when it was made.

This roll spent 36.5 operating months with known one ligament cracks before rapid crack growth began. If the weld repairs were cracked as-welded, then the operating time to rapid growth might have been as long as 51 months. Once rapid growth began, however, a nine month inspection interval was just adequate to prevent the roll becoming un-runnable in the machine. This experience again emphasizes the value of restricting the use of weld repairs, performing baseline inspections, and adjusting the inspection interval if cracking is found. If the weld repair had been reported at the time of manufacture, it could have been carefully inspected for cracking before the roll entered service.

period 88Mar - 88Dec 89Jun - 89Nov 90Sep - 90Sep 91Jan - 91Dec 92Aug - 93Jun 93Oct - 94May

running time (months) 9 5 21 days 10 10 7

cycles 107 8.2 4.4 0.52 7.1 8.89 5.57

cumulative cycles 108 0.82 1.26 1.31 2.02 2.91 3.47

inspection results

first inspection of roll 8 one ligament crack indications

95Jan - 95Nov 96Mar - 96Dec 97 Jun 97 Aug

9.5 9 14 days 11 days

9.39 8.9 0.455 0.4

4.41 5.3 5.35

second inspection two one ligament cracks confirmed near mid length two one ligament cracks no change two cracks joined and extended to 20 holes minor extension and branching at each end

No.5 VK-A378 Suction Press Roll A one ligament crack was discovered on scheduled inspection and in-situ metallography was performed to examine the area. A weld repair was found of a size that is often considered to be cosmetic (Figure. 14). The discovery of cracking triggered the order of a replacement roll. The angular location of the crack was indicated on the cover outside the drilled face and the distance from the mark measured. The inside of both holes was polished smooth to facilitate borescope inspection. Over the next several months, borescope inspection from the outside was used to check for any increase in crack depth or crack re-initiation on the opposite side of the two holes it intersected. No crack growth was found. Figure 15 shows PT of the crack. Penetrant was applied inside the polished holes for external borescope inspection in order to make the crack tip easier to see. CONCLUSION This paper has attempted to demonstrate the benefits of regular inspection of suction rolls in avoiding unplanned downtime and contributing to the understanding of the initiation and growth of cracks. Baseline inspections are of particular value as well as some degree of investigation of any cracking that is found. The benefit to the industry as a whole will include fact based specification of suction roll quality requirements and more reliable operation of suction rolls. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors would like to acknowledge Glen Asman at Alberni Specialties and Steve Lawn, formerly at Powell River, for establishing inspection programs which make crack detection possible and for supporting investigations of the causes of cracking. The interest and expertise of technicians from Canspec and Industrial Nondestructive Testing is also gratefully acknowledged. REFERENCES 1. 2. 3. Corrosion fatigue crack propagation of high strength stainless steels used in suction rolls, C. Kelley, J. Vestola, V. Sailas, and R. Pelloux. Tappi Journal, v.58, n.11 (November 1975), pp. 80-85. Unpublished 1996 data from a suction roll manufacturer. A suction roll shell material with improved corrosion fatigue resistance, Allan P. Castillo and Gregory Michel. Tappi Journal, (December 1992), pp. 131 - 138.

Table 1 Nominal Compositions of Currently Available Stainless Steel Suction Roll Shell Alloys a
Material C-169, CA15 Alloy 86 KCR-A682 b ACX-100 c ALC-105, KCR-A894 KCR 110d 3RE60 SRGd 2205 SRG Plus d 2304 AVSd Duplok 27 PMd
a b c d

C 0.07 0.02 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.017 0.017 0.03 max

Cr Ni Mo Martensitic - Centrifugally Cast 12.4 0.6 0.5 Duplex - Centrifugally Cast 26.0 6.8 18.0 5.5 2.3 24.0 5.7 2.4 22.5 4.2 1.5 21.5 3.3 0.7

Cu 2.0 3.2 0.5

Mn 0.5 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.8

Si 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6

Duplex - Rolled and Welded 18.5 4.9 2.8 22.0 5.7 2.92 23 4 -

1.5 1.35 1.35

1.5 0.63 0.63

Duplex - Hot Isostatically Pressed and Welded 27 7 3 3

Typical composition, wt%, balance of composition is iron Contains niobium (columbium) Contains nitrogen and cobalt Contains nitrogen

Table 2 Nominal Compositions of Stainless Steel Suction Roll Alloys That Are No Longer Produced a
Material CF-3M CF-8M PM-3-1811MN DSS-69 A-70 PM-4-1300M Alloy 75 A-63 A-170 A-171 A-271 VK-A378 b PM-3-1804M PM-2-2205 PM-2-2106MC C 0.02 0.05 0.015 0.04 0.03 0.1 0.02 0.05 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.06 Cr 17.7 17.7 16.5 Ni Austenitic 13.8 13.8 13.5 Mo 2.3 2.3 2.1 Cu 3.7 1.0 Mn 1.3 1.3 1.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.6 1.2 0.5 Si 0.8 0.8 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.7 0.5 1.3 1.5 1.1 1.3 1.0 0.6 1.3 0.6

Martensitic -Centrifugally Cast 12.4 4.0 0.7 11.9 4.0 1.5 Martensitic - Centrifugally Cast 13.0 1.0 2.1 26.0 21.8 23.3 22.2 24.6 19.5 17.9 26.0 21.5 Duplex-Centrifugally Cast 6.8 9.4 2.7 10.7 2.1 8.3 1.2 4.3 0.7 5.0 2.0 Duplex - Forged 4.0 2.0 4.0 0.8 5.0 0.5

a Typical composition, wt%, balance of composition is iron b Contains nitrogen and tungsten

Instructions: Prepare a drawing of the internal and external surfaces of the suction roll shell as shown in this example. Plot the location of significant indications using a coordinate system, as shown on the following page. Detail of specific areas may be documented by photographs or pencil rubbings of these areas. Include manufacturing information, as shown.

Overall view of shell Manufacturer: __________________________ Shell serial no. (S/N): ____________________ Reference mark (if S/N not used): __________ Shell material: __________________________ Reported by: Company: Date: Page ___ of ___ Figure 1. Sample Report Form from TAPPI TIP 0402-19 Length: ______________________________ O.D.: ________________________________ Thickness: ____________________________ Time in service: ________________________

Internal/External* Surface Shell S/N: _________________________________________ Examination method:_________________________________ Reported by: ________________ Date: ______________________

Coordinates of indications or areas of indications Indication A B C D E Circ. Dist. From S/N entire entire 50 to 53 in. 40 in. etc. Axial Dist. From front end 200 to 262 in. 130 to 220 in. 200 in. 40 to 80 in Description band of mech. gouging area of minor pitting 3 in. circ. Crack (12 holes joined) 10 in. axial crack rubbing no extension Detailed by: photo photo rubbing Change Since Last Inspection none none extended 1 in.

View of internal/external* surface of roll rolled out, as observed from inside/outside. Circumferential measurements are made in clockwise/counterclockwise* direction from first digit of S/N. * delete the one that does not apply to this page Page ___ of ___ Figure 2. Sample Report Form from TAPPI TIP 0402-19

Figure 3. WFMT of a cracked area in a VK-A171 press roll.

Figure 4. Colour contrast PT of the same area shown in Figure 3.

Figure 5. Fracture mechanics compact tension test specimen. The upper left shows the standard specimen. The lower right shows a modified specimen used to investigate crack re-initiation across drilled holes.

Figure 6. Re-initiation of a growing crack on the other side of holes.

Figure 7. Corrosion fatigue crack growth rate and data.

Figure 8. Remnant of slag inclusion left in an Alloy B roll after grinding.

Figure 9. Observed versus calculated crack growth rates for case histories No. 1 and No.4. Calculated curve is based on an initial two-hole crack (0.16 long) at 4.55 Hz and alternating stress, = 28 MPa (4.1 ksi).

Figure 10. Case History No.2. Typical fracture surface of the CA-15 suction press roll,. Note the widespread pitting. Arrows indicate small corrosion fatigue cracks.

Figure 11. Case History No.4. In-situ metallography of cracking in a weld repair in the VK-A378 suction press roll. The two cracks are indicated by arrows. Dashed lines show the boundary of the weld repair.

Figure 12. Case History No.3. PT of VK-A378 suction press roll showing the extent of crack growth after continued operation.

Figure 13. Case History No.4. Diagram detailing the stages of crack growth in the VK-A378 suction press roll.

Figure 14. Case History No.5. In-situ metallography of the one ligament crack showing it occurred in a small weld repair.

Figure 15. Case History No.5. PT of one ligament crack at a weld repair in a VK-A378 suction press roll.