Duplex Mcenerney

P0214.
doc
Experience manufacturing alloy 19D (UNS S32001) seam welded lean duplex stainless steel tubing for subsea umbilical applications
Authors: Joseph W. McEnerney Gibson Tube Inc, USA Keywords: Alloy 19D, lean duplex stainless steel, seam welded tubing, longitudinal seam weld, strip splice weld, orbital weld, intermetallic phases, physical properties data, dimensional data, ferrite point count data, tensile test data, hardness test data, surface roughness test data, burst test data, rotational fatigue test data, subsea umbilical tubing. Abstract Alloy 19D (UNS S32001) is a recently commercialized lean duplex (ferritic-austenitic) stainless steel. Comparing the composition of alloy 19D to conventional duplex and super duplex stainless steels, the chromium content is reduced, manganese is substituted for most of the nickel, and molybdenum is essentially eliminated. It offers the higher strength associated with duplex stainless steel combined with lower cost and relative freedom from detrimental intermetallic phase formation. Eleven production heats of cold rolled alloy 19D strip, supplied by AK Steel, were converted to long coils of seam welded tubing. Greater than 3.5 million feet of tubing have been produced and subsequently used to manufacture umbilicals for several subsea installations in the Gulf of Mexico. For subsea umbilical applications alloy 19D tubing is currently used with an externally extruded zinc sheath. However, other external protection systems are being considered. The coils of seam welded tubing contained strip reported [ref. 2]. Because of its lean composition, alloy 19D has a lower cost than the conventional and super duplex stainless steels. Alloy 19D is less corrosion resistant than either the conventional duplex (2205) or super duplex (2507) stainless steels. For applications such as subsea umbilical tubing where alloy 19D is compatible with the internal but not the external service environment, a continuous zinc anode has been extruded on the outside surface. Other external protection systems are being considered. These systems could include multi-layer coatings, with or without cathodic protection. Because of its duplex structure, alloy 19D offers improved resistance to chloride stress corrosion cracking (SCC) compared to austenitic stainless steel alloys such as grades 304L and 316L. For example, AK Steel reports data [ref. 1] showing SCC of alloy 304 in 127 hours, but no cracking of alloy 19D after 720 hours splice, longitudinal seam and orbital welds. Each of the weld types was tested and evaluated. The coils were manufactured in accordance with ASTM A 789 plus additional acceptance criteria. A detailed description of the acceptance criteria and associated testing is provided. Standard testing of the three weld types from all of the production heats demonstrated desirable dimensional, microstructural and mechanical properties. The microstructural characterization consisted of an assessment of the ferrite content. The mechanical properties assessment consisted of tensile, hardness and burst testing. Extensive rotational fatigue and other additional tests were performed on samples from one of the production heats. This additional testing was performed on samples containing each of the three weld types. Seam welded alloy 19D tubing enables the production of long coils with desirable properties and a greatly reduced number of girth welds (strip splice or orbital) when compared to seamless tubing. of exposure to 25% boiling sodium chloride with the pH = 1.5 (adjusted with phosphoric acid). Although an alloy s compatibility with any service environments must always be carefully evaluated, alloy 19D may be considered for some applications where welded type 304L austenitic stainless steel tubing is currently used. However, because of its higher strength and lean composition, alloy 19D welded tubing offers design and cost advantages over type 304L. 1.2 Subsea umbilical tubing applications A recent paper presented at the Offshore Technology Conference summarizes the evolution of subsea umbilical design for applications in the Gulf of Mexico [ref. 3]. Umbilicals provide the electrical power, communications, chemical injection and hydraulic fluid power necessary to control and operate subsea wells. 1
1. Introduction
Alloy 19D (UNS S32001) is a lean duplex (ferritic-austenitic) stainless steel that was developed and patented by AK Steel and registered as the trademark Nitronic 19D [ref. 1]. Comparing the composition of alloy 19D to conventional duplex and super duplex stainless steels, the chromium content is reduced, manganese is substituted for most of the nickel, and molybdenum is essentially eliminated. Gibson Tube, AK Steel, and SeaCAT Corporation conducted a joint development program to produce seam welded alloy 19D tubing. A summary of the development work and initial production of tubing has previously been reported [ref. 2]. Seam welded alloy 19D tubing was first manufactured for production orders during the summer of 2000. 1.1 Characteristics of Alloy 19D Alloy 19D has several significant characteristics. The mechanical strength is higher than that for austenitic stainless steels. Physical properties such as lower coefficient of thermal expansion and higher thermal conductivity also offer design advantages over austenitic stainless steels. Alloy 19D has relative freedom from the formation of detrimental intermetallic phases compared to the conventional or super duplex stainless steels. A summary of Gibson Tube and AK Steel evaluations regarding intermetallic phase formation has previously been
Stainless Steel World2001 KCI Publishing BV
P0214.doc The cross-section has grown larger and ever more complex as the electric cables and tubing have been integrated into a single umbilical with more than twenty tubes. The paper notes several driving forces behind the evolution of subsea umbilical tubing. These driving forces include: application to oil wells, dynamic connections to floating hosts, movement into the deeper waters of the Gulf of Mexico, and lengths greater than twenty miles (32 km). Early subsea umbilicals utilized thermoplastic hose. However, the increasing water depth, higher operating pressure and aggressive nature of the fluids resulted in the use of super duplex stainless steel (SDSS) tubing. Seamless alloy 2507 SDSS tubing has been commonly used for subsea umbilicals. However, as a result of using seamless tubing, the lengths available have been limited. In order to make long coils, straight lengths and/or short coils of seamless tubing must be joined using girth welds. For projects requiring miles of tubing, this can result in the need to make thousands of girth welds. The production of such large numbers of girth welds can have an adverse impact on both cost and delivery schedule. In addition, SDSS such as alloy 2507 can form detrimental intermetallic phases. The presence of intermetallic phases has been cited as the cause of industry reported failures of SDSS [ref. 3]. The need for a lower cost alternative to the SDSS resulted in the development of zinc-sheathed, high frequency induction (HFI) seam welded steel tubing by SeaCAT Corporation. The HFI welded tubing is manufactured from cold rolled Cr-Mo steel strip that is quenched and tempered to produce high strength after welding. A continuous zinc anode is extruded on the outside surface of the tubing. The zinc acts as a barrier and provides cathodic protection in case the sheath is damaged. While this tubing has and continues to be successfully used for subsea umbilical projects, the introduction of scale inhibitors not compatible with the Cr-Mo steel resulted in the need for a more corrosion resistant tubing. Gas tungsten arc (GTA) seam welded alloy 19D tubing was jointly developed by Gibson Tube, AK Steel and SeaCAT Corporation to meet the need for lower cost subsea umbilical tubing with increased corrosion resistance. AK Steel provides the cold rolled strip, Gibson Tube manufactures the seam weld tubing and to date SeaCAT Corporation has provided the same continuously extruded zinc anode on the outside surface as used for the HFI welded Cr-Mo steel tubing. However, as previously discussed, alloy 19D could be used with other external protection systems. The GTA seam welded alloy 19D tubing has successfully demonstrated compatibility with hydrate/scale inhibitors that are corrosive to the CrMo steel tubing. GTA seam welded alloy 19D tubing provides several additional advantages. First, alloy 19D tubing contains a forged GTA longitudinal seam weld. As a result, GTA seam welded alloy 19D tubing has a more uniform internal surface than the HFI weld on the Cr-Mo steel tubing. Alloy 19D requires less cleaning than the Cr-Mo steel. The ability for alloy 19D to handle a wider range of internal fluids than the Cr-Mo steel provides more flexibility with regard to umbilical design and in some cases may reduce the number of tubes required. Alloy 19D may also offer a more robust solution for water based hydraulic fluids [ref. 3]. As of September 2001, seam welded alloy 19D has been manufactured for use as subsea umbilical tubing on several projects in the Gulf of Mexico, including Serrano, Oregano, Nakika, Einset, Ladybug, Manatee and Coulomb. This report summarizes manufacturing and testing activities associated with eleven production heats of seam welded alloy 19D tubing produced for these projects. ranking chloride pitting corrosion resistance. Based upon the ranges reported in Table 3, it can be seen that alloy 19D is ranked between grades 304L and 316L, but below 2205 and 2507.
PRE = %Cr + 3.3 x %Mo + 16 x %N (1)
Tensile and hardness test data for the strip are reported in Table 4. This data is as reported by AK Steel.
3. Types of welds in finished Gibson Tube coils

All welds made by Gibson Tube currently use the automatic, autogenous GTA welding process. In addition, the longitudinal seam weld for alloy 19D utilizes plasma preheating. Gibson Tube has recently installed a tubing mill that utilizes the laser welding (LW) process. Welding trials using the LW process for alloy 19D tubing are currently in progress. All welded tubing contains a longitudinal seam weld along its entire length. This weld is made after the strip has been roll formed into a tubular shape. The strip edges are brought together to form a square butt, longitudinal weld joint. The gap between the butted edges is carefully controlled to provide a consistent weld. The weld is maintained under compressive load during solidification to prevent defects. The longitudinal seam weld for alloy 19D tubing is cold forged. Figure 1 shows a typical cross section of the forged longitudinal seam weld from a production mill coil. The effect of the cold forging is an improved weld geometry and microstructure. After cold forging, the outside and inside surfaces of the longitudinal seam weld are very uniform. The uniform geometry provides several benefits including an improved ability to inspect the weld and elimination of potential sites for stress concentration and corrosion. While the amount of cold work and subsequent heat treatment is not sufficient to fully recrystallize the weld, some degree of grain refinement does occur. Long coils of tubing produced by Gibson Tube generally contain two additional types of welds: strip splice and orbital. Strip splice welds join the end of one strip coil to another. These welds are used to enable continuous feeding of strip and thereby continuous production of tubing at the mill. The strip splice weld is made on the 2
2. Strip
Tubing was manufactured from eleven heats of strip supplied by AK Steel. The strip was in accordance with ASTM A 240, UNS designation S32001 [ref. 4]. The chemical compositions of the eleven heats of strip are shown in Table 1. These values are as reported by AK Steel. The requirements of the A 240 specification are also listed in Table 1. The compositions of two duplex (2205 and 2507) and two austenitic (304L and 316L) stainless steels are compared to alloy 19D in Table 2. The pitting resistance equivalents (PRE) have been calculated for each of these alloys using Equation (1) and the ranges of chemical compositions shown in Table 2. The resulting PRE ranges are shown in Table 3, with the alloys listed in descending order of PRE range. Calculation of an alloy s PRE is a commonly used means for
P0214.doc butted ends of strip cut at an angle. When the strip is subsequently formed and welded into tubing, the strip splice weld assumes a helical orientation. Due to this helical orientation, the ends of the strip splice weld intersect the longitudinal seam at two locations. For the 0.625-in. OD x 0.065-in. wall thickness (15.9-mm x 1.7-mm) alloy 19D tubing, the strip coils from AK Steel have ranged in length from 1,500 to 3,200-ft. (460 to 975-m). Depending upon the length of the strip coil, two to four coils are joined with strip splice welds to produce a 5,000 to 6,400-ft. (1,520 to 1,950-m) master strip coil. The master strip coil is then converted to a tubing mill coil of the same length with one to three strip splice welds. Orbital welds join two or more shorter mill coils of seam welded tubing to produce a long coil. The orbital weld is made on butted ends of tubing. Strip splice and orbital weld procedure and performance qualification is in accordance with ASME Section IX [ref. 5] plus additional criteria. Several mill coils are joined to produce a 30,000-ft. (9,140-m) length reel for shipment. The typical number of orbital welds in these reels is ten. This number is greater than the 5 to 6 expected based upon the length of the mill coils. This is due to shorter mill coils and the cut out of strip splice welds rejected by x-ray examination or tubing sections rejected by eddy current examination. The strip splice and longitudinal seam welds are heat treated by in-line induction heating with a protective atmosphere. The orbital welds receive local postweld heat treatment (PWHT) by resistance heating with a protective atmosphere on the inside surface and air on the outside surface. The oxide layer on the outside surface that results from the local PWHT is subsequently removed using an abrasive pad. preheating, autogenous GTA welding, forging and induction heat treatment. As of September 2001, greater than 3.5 million feet (1,067 km) of welded tubing have been produced. The calibration standard for eddy current testing contains the four artificial flaws described below. 1. Through-wall hole, 0.031-in. (0.79-mm) maximum diameter. 2. Transverse notch on the outside surface, 0.0065-in. (0.17-mm) maximum depth. 3. Longitudinal notch on the outside surface, 0.0065-in. (0.17-mm) maximum depth. 4. Transverse notch on the inside surface, 0.0065-in. (0.17-mm) maximum depth. 5.3 X-ray examination of strip splice and orbital welds To date, examination of strip splice and orbital welds has been performed using film-based radiographic techniques in accordance with ASME Section V [ref. 7]. Examination of strip splice welds is performed after they have been formed into a tubular shape, welded and heat-treated. Examination of the orbital welds is performed after local postweld heat treatment. Three radiographs imaged 0 , + 60 , and 60apart and oriented perpendicular to the tubing are used to examine the strip splice and orbital welds. Gibson Tube has been attempting to implement real time digital radioscopy for x-ray examination of strip splice and orbital welds. The digital system utilizes the same orientation and number of images as film-based radiography. An interim system is currently available and utilizes the xray tube and image intensifier planned for incorporation in the final system. The interim system has manual manipulation and is not shielded. An automated multi-axis manipulation system with a fully shielded cabinet will be incorporated in the final system. Gibson Tube has adopted the use of a wire image quality indicator (IQI) for x-ray examination. The essential wire is based upon BS EN 462-3 [ref. 8] and BS EN 462-1 [ref. 9]. European standards provide more complete coverage of the wall thickness range associated with small diameter tubing. For example, the first range for penetrated thickness, w, is up to 1.2 mm (0.047-in.) in Table 9 of BS EN 462-3. For a double-wall radiographic technique, w equals 2t, where t is the single wall thickness. The w value of 1.2 mm (0.047-in.) corresponds to a single wall thickness of 0.0235-in. (0.6 mm). In contrast, the first range for single wall thickness in Table T-276 of ASME 3
5. Quality assurance plan

Sections 5.1 to 5.5 describe the typical quality assurance plan that would be used for long coils of welded alloy 19D tubing intended for subsea umbilical applications. Gibson Tube Quality Plans typically include in-process monitoring of key variables. For example, equipment and/or recording forms are used at the mill to record welding parameters, heat treatment temperature and other important variables. Specific plans are developed to meet the requirements of individual customers. 5.1 Strip Incoming strip is assessed for the desired weight per coil (PIW), dimensions (width and thickness), and chemical composition. Reported compliance by the strip supplier on the mill test report is used as the basis for acceptance of chemical composition and mechanical properties. Ferrite point counting of the strip is performed by Gibson Tube. Positive material identification (PMI), using an x-ray fluorescence (XRF) alloy analyzer, is performed at receiving and the final reeling operation. The dimensions of the strip are also monitored at the mill on an in-process inspection basis. 5.2 Testing of mill coils in accordance with ASTM A 789 Dimensional, tensile, flange, hardness, reverse flattening, and eddy current testing are performed in accordance with the requirements of ASTM A 789. Test specimens are removed from the ends of mill coils and evaluated. Tensile tests are performed on samples from one or both coil ends and from each coil or an agreed upon frequency, depending upon customer requirements. Dual coil eddy current testing is performed at the mills using a low frequency to penetrate through the wall thickness and a high frequency to examine the outside surface. A second low frequency test is performed off-line as the tubing is being reeled for shipment.
4. Seam welded tubing

All strip heats were converted to 0.625-in. OD x 0.065-in. wall thickness (15.9-mm x 1.7-mm) tubing. The tubing was manufactured in accordance with ASTM A 789 [ref. 6]. Alloy 19D was recently added to ASTM A 789. Table 5 provides a summary of the tensile, hardness and heat treatment requirements that were approved for addition to A 789. All production tubing was manufactured using plasma
P0214.doc Section V (ref. 7) is 0.25-in. (6.35 m), greater than 10 times larger. Based upon the requirements of BS EN 462-3, Table 9 and BS EN 462-1, Gibson Tube has adopted Set A of ASTM E 747 [ref. 10] as the IQI to use for x-ray examination of all tubing. The essential wire for 0.065in. (1.7 mm) wall thickness tubing is the No. 2 and has a diameter of 0.004-in. (0.10 mm). Gibson Tube and TWI Ltd. have just completed a joint project to determine acceptance criteria for porosity in alloy 19D girth welds (strip splice and orbital). Cut out production orbital welds with porosity were tested. First, the porosity size was characterized by digital radioscopy. Before testing, each weld was plastically strained (15 cycles) at the location of the maximum diameter pore to simulate the worst expected strain during tubing manufacturing, zinc sheathing, umbilical bundling, and installation. Each sample was then burst tested. TWI examined the fracture surfaces to determine the involvement, if any, of the porosity and whether a correlation existed between burst pressure and porosity size. TWI has concluded that a maximum single pore size acceptance limit of 0.4 mm (0.016-in.) was reasonable. Gibson Tube has adopted an acceptance criteria based upon the size of the essential wire in the IQI. For the 0.065-in. (1.7 mm) wall thickness tubing, a single, subsurface, isolated pore with a diameter less than 0.004-in. (0.10 mm) would be allowed. Note that the acceptance criteria adopted by Gibson Tube allows a pore size less than 25% of the maximum recommended by TWI. 5.4 Hydrostatic testing of mill coils An in-process hydrostatic test of each mill coil is performed by Gibson Tube. The alloy 19D mill coils for subsea umbilical applications are 5,000 to 6,400-ft. (1,525 to 1,950-m) long. Six to eight of the mill coils are joined by orbital welding to produce 30,000-ft. (9,140-m) long reels. These reels are then shipped to off-site customer facilities. Two or more Gibson Tube reels are combined to produce +60,000-ft. (18,300-m) zinc-sheathed reels to be used for umbilical bundling. The final acceptance test (FAT) of these zinc-sheathed reels includes a hydrostatic test. It was deemed to be more efficient for Gibson Tube to perform only an inprocess hydrostatic test on the mill coils and rely on the customer FAT to test the reels. The in-process hydrostatic test of the mill coils consists of holding at yield pressure for 1 hours. The last thirty minutes of the test must demonstrate pressure stability or the test cycle is repeated. At the end of the test, the coil and cardboard placed under it are checked for leaks. For the 0.625-in. OD x 0.065-in. wall thickness (15.9-mm x 1.7-mm) tubing, the coils are pressurized to 17,500 to 18,000 psi (121 to 124 MPa). This pressure range was established based upon an evaluation in which dimensional measurements were made on coils before and after testing. The pressure range is expected to cause minimal dimensional change. During the test, a transducer is used to read pressure and a digital video recorder captures the pressure versus time data. Pressure versus time plots are then produced from the digital data. 5.5 Additional testing of mill coils and orbital welds The frequency of testing of samples from mill coils is based upon customer requirements. Specimens are mounted, polished, etched, and examined to assess the condition of the longitudinal seam weld. The ferrite content of the longitudinal seam and strip splice welds are currently determined once at the start of each new heat as described in Section 7.1. The frequency of testing of orbital weld samples is based upon customer requirements. Tensile tests and ferrite point counting, as described in Section 7.1, have been performed. from the ends of 8-ft. (2.4 m) long sections of tubing. The 8-ft. (2.4 m) lengths were randomly selected from approximately 1,000-ft. of tubing manufactured for a special qualification program. The dimensional analysis and surface roughness measurements described below were performed on one end of these 12-in. (305 mm) long samples. 6.1 Dimensional measurements Table 6 provides the results of dimensional measurements made at the start and end of each mill coil. The samples used to perform these measurements were removed after the tubing was coiled. The maximum and minimum outside diameters as well as the wall thickness of the base metal and weld were measured. The average, 95% confidence interval, maximum, and minimum values for each of the four dimensional characteristics are reported for 950+ mill coils. The requirements of ASTM A 789 are also shown in the table. The data demonstrate excellent control of dimensions, well within the variation allowed by ASTM A 789. For the additional samples from heat 301000, the outside diameter was measured at the LSW and three other locations at 45increments around the circumference using a 1-in. (25.4 mm) micrometer with a flat anvil. The wall thickness was measured at the LSW and seven other locations at 45increments around the circumference using a 9/16-in. (14.3 mm) micrometer with a ball anvil. The outside diameter and wall thickness measurements were compared to the permissible variations in dimensions allowed by ASTM A 789. The results of the dimensional analysis and ASTM A 789 requirements are reported in Table 7. The data again demonstrate excellent control of dimensions, well within the variation allowed by ASTM A 789. 6.2 Surface roughness measurements Surface roughness parameters were determined using a Mitutoyo SJ-201 surface roughness tester. ANSI B46.1 [ref. 11] classifies this tester as a Type V skidded instrument parameters only, stylus with piezoelectric transducer. The detector is described by Mitutoyo as shown below: 4
6. Dimensional and surface roughness characterization

Dimensional measurements taken from the beginning and end of each mill coil are reported for all heats and additional measurement data is provided for samples from heat 301000. In addition, surface roughness data are reported for samples from heat 301000. The tubing samples used for the additional testing of heat 301000 were as follows. The samples contained only the longitudinal seam weld (LSW). Three samples, each 12in. (305 mm) long, were removed
P0214.doc Detecting method: differential inductance Stylus: tip radius 5 m (200 in), 90conical, diamond Skid: radius of curvature 40 mm (1.6 in) Measuring force: 4 mN (0.9 x 10-3 lbf) The parameters were determined in accordance with ANSI B46.1, using the phase correct Gaussian filter (PC 50). The sampling length was 0.03-in. (0.76 mm) and the evaluation length was 0.15-in. (3.8 mm), i.e., five sampling lengths of 0.03-in. (0.76 mm). The parameters were determined with the detector moving in the axial direction of the tubing. Determinations were made on the outside and inside surfaces at the LSW and three other locations at 90 increments around the circumference. The surface roughness parameters that were determined are listed below and are reported in Table 8.
Arithmetic mean deviation of profile, Ra Maximum height of profile, Ry Ten-point height of irregularities, Rz Root-mean-square deviation of the profile, Rq
splice weld, longitudinal seam weld, and orbital weld samples. The evaluations consisted of assessment of the ferrite content. In addition, photomicrographs were prepared to represent the typical microstructure. Strip specimens consisted of a section oriented transverse to the strip length or rolling direction. Specimens from strip splice, longitudinal seam and orbital welds consisted of sections oriented transverse to the welding direction. Evaluation of the tubing base metal was performed on the same specimen as that used for the welds (i.e., a section oriented transverse to the welding direction). It should be noted that based upon previously reported evaluations by both Gibson Tube and AK Steel [ref. 2], it was determined that no assessment for the presence of intermetallic phases was necessary. 7.1 Ferrite content Point counting was in accordance with ASTM E 562 [ref. 12]. A 5 x 5 (25 point) counting grid applied to 32 fields (resulting in 800 points counted) was used. The 32 fields consisted of two 16-field scans moving from the outside to the inside surface. The aim was to have a relative accuracy of 10% or less. The relative accuracy is defined as the 95% confidence interval divided by the average ferrite content. The ferrite content was determined in the base metal for the strip and in both the base and weld metal for strip splice, longitudinal seam and orbital welds. The arithmetic average (% Ferrite), the 95% confidence interval (95% CI) and the relative accuracy (% RA) are reported for the strip, strip splice welds, longitudinal seam welds and orbital welds in Tables 9, 10, 11 and 12 respectively. The data shown in Table 9 are based upon one sample for each strip heat. The data for the strip splice and longitudinal seam welds shown in Tables 10 and 11 are based upon one sample taken at the start of each new heat. The data for the orbital welds shown in Table 12 are based upon one sample for each reel. The data for the orbital welds represent 100+ reels. For the orbital weld data, the range of % ferrite is reported along with the 95% CI and % RA corresponding to the limits of the range. Tables 9 through 12 show that the
ferrite content of the strip, tubing base metal and weld metal for the three welds in all production heats was well within the acceptable range (35 to 60%) and mainly within the aim range (45 to 50%). 7.2 Photomicrographs Figures 2 to 6 show photomicrographs representing the typical microstructure found in the strip, strip splice weld metal, longitudinal seam weld metal, tube base metal and orbital weld metal respectively. These photomicrographs reveal a relatively consistent microstructure for both the welds and base metal.
8. Physical properties
The following physical properties data have been provided by AK Steel. The testing required for the density, thermal expansion coefficient and modulus of elasticity data were performed by AK Steel. The testing for the specific heat and thermal conductivity data were performed by Holometrix Micromet. The testing for density, specific heat, thermal conductivity, and coefficient of thermal expansion was performed on 0.065-in. (1.7 mm) thick mill annealed strip from heat number 301000. The testing for modulus of elasticity was performed on 0.625-in. OD x 0.065-in. wall thickness (15.9-mm x 1.7-mm) tubing samples from heat 301000 containing a longitudinal seam weld. 8.1 Density Testing to determine density at room temperature was performed in accordance with ASTM B 311 [ref. 13]. AK Steel reports the density to be 7.766 gm/cm3. 8.2 Specific heat Testing to determine the specific heat was performed at 25, 260 and 538 C (77, 500 and 1000F) using laser flash thermal conductivity techniques in accordance with ASTM E 1461 [ref. 14]. Holometrix reports the results shown in Table 13. 8.3 Thermal conductivity Testing to determine the thermal conductivity was performed at temperatures of 25, 260 and 538 C (77, 500 and 1000F) using laser flash thermal conductivity techniques in accordance with ASTM E 1461. Holometrix reports the results shown 5
As expected, all parameters showed the roughness of the longitudinal seam weld (orientation weld 0) on the outside surface to be less than that at the inside surface. ANSI B46.1, Figure B1 provides a comparison of the surface roughness, reported by Ra, for various common production methods. The longitudinal seam weld roughness for both the outside (Ra 15 to 25 in.) and inside surfaces (Ra 21 to 43 in.) corresponds to the range reported for grinding, thereby indicating a uniform surface. The surface roughness measurements provide a direct characterization of the effectiveness of the forging and sizing operations in achieving uniform weld surfaces. As previously stated, the uniform surfaces provide several benefits including an improved ability to inspect the longitudinal seam weld, elimination of potential sites for stress concentration and corrosion, and improved fluid flow characteristics.
7. Microstructural characterization
Microstructural evaluations were performed on the following: strip, strip
P0214.doc in Table 14. 8.4 Coefficient of thermal expansion Testing to determine the coefficient of thermal expansion was performed over the range +20 to 650 C (68 to 1200F) in accordance with ASTM E 228 [ref. 15]. The data below +25 C was disregarded due to test scatter in this region. A regression analysis was performed on the data and the instantaneous coefficients were determined at 20, + 20 and 100 C ( 4, 68, and 212F). AK Steel reports the results shown in Table 15. The complete set of data (+20 to 650 C) is available from AK Steel if information regarding higher temperatures is needed. 8.5 Modulus of elasticity The modulus of elasticity was determined in accordance with ASTM E 111 [ref. 16] at test temperatures of 20, + 21 and + 100 C ( 4, 70, and 212F). The test temperature tolerance was 5 C (9F). The results are reported in Table 16. Each specimen was pre-strained three times to approximately 7,000 lbf (31 MN) to remove the hysteresis. The average 0.2% offset yield strength was estimated to be 85,000 psi (586 MPa). By multiplying the cross sectional area of each tube by 85,000 psi (586 MPa) and taking 75% of the value, it was determined that 7,000 lbf (31 MN) would be sufficient to remove the hysteresis. After pre-straining the specimens, the gages were applied and testing proceeded. Each reported modulus of elasticity represents the average of three tests. 8.6 Comparison of physical properties to other stainless steels Table 17 provides a comparison of physical properties reported in Sections 8.1 to 8.5 for alloy 19D to types 304/304L, 316/316L, 2205 and 2507 stainless steels. The data for the other stainless steels were obtained from the product data sheets of various strip suppliers. As discussed in Section 1.1 the coefficient of expansion is lower and the thermal conductivity is higher for duplex stainless steels as compared to the austenitic stainless steels. This offers design advantages.
9. Mechanical properties
The mechanical properties of strip splice, longitudinal seam, and orbital weld samples were evaluated. The evaluations consisted of tensile, hardness, rotational fatigue and burst tests. Tensile tests at ambient temperature were performed on all weld types from each of the heats. Additional tensile tests at various temperatures were performed on all three weld types from heat 301000. Hardness testing was performed on the longitudinal seam weld from each of the heats. Additional hardness tests, including weld cross section traverses, were performed on all three weld types for heat 301000. Burst testing was performed on all weld types for each of the heats. Rotational fatigue testing was performed on all weld types for heat 301000. All testing was performed on 0.625-in. OD x 0.065-in. wall thickness (15.9mm x 1.7-mm) tubing. Test specimens generally consisted of 12in. (304.8 mm) long sections for the tensile, hardness and burst tests. The specimens used for tensile testing at various temperatures were 8-in. (203.2 mm) long, with 4-in. (101.6 mm) between the grips and a 2-in. (50.8 mm) gage length. The specimens for rotational fatigue testing were 33.5 in. (850 mm) long. For specimens with a strip splice or orbital weld, the weld was located at approximately the center of the test specimen. 9.1 Tensile test data for production heats Tensile testing was performed in accordance with ASTM A 370 [ref. 17]. The ultimate tensile strength (UTS), 0.2% yield strength (YS) and elongation (E) in 2-in. (50.8-mm) were determined. Tensile test data are reported in Tables 18 to 20. Table 18 reports data for strip splice welds and is based upon the average of two samples produced at the start of each new heat. Tables 19 and 20 provide data from a larger population of seam welded tubing and orbital weld samples. The data for the tubing was generally taken from a sample at the start of every fourth mill coil. The data for the orbital welds represents a sample taken from the end of each reel. The average, 95% confidence interval, maximum, and minimum values for each of the tensile properties are reported for the tubing and orbital welds in Tables 19 and 20.
It should be noted that the requirements listed for alloy 19D in these tables are based upon subsea umbilical specifications in effect when the tubing was manufactured. Changes have recently been made to subsea umbilical specifications with regard to the minimum UTS and the maximum hardness. The minimum UTS has been changed from 100,000 to 110,000 psi (690 to 758 MPa). The maximum hardness has been changed from 25 to 30 HRC. Prior to discussing the tensile test data, it is important to consider the issue of appropriate design minimum UTS, YS and E values for alloy 19D tubing containing all three weld types. As will be discussed in detail, the autogenous orbital weld, when tested in uniaxial tension transverse to the weld, exhibits the lowest tensile properties. Since prudent design methodology dictates the use of properties reflective of the weakest link, it would seem appropriate to base the design minimum values for subsea umbilical tubing upon the orbital weld. From this perspective, certain current minimum requirements and the recent increase in UTS do not appear to be appropriate. Based upon the orbital weld, appropriate design minimum values would be: UTS: 100,000 psi (690 MPa) YS: 70,000 psi (483 MPa) E: 10%. All samples representing the three weld types exceeded the minimum UTS requirement in effect at the time of manufacture. All tests for strip splice and longitudinal seam weld samples also exceeded the new UTS requirement. The orbital welds for six of the heats had UTS values below the new requirement. The average UTS values for all orbital weld heats were above the new requirement. All strip splice and longitudinal seam weld samples exceeded the minimum YS requirement. Orbital weld YS met the minimum requirements for some heats and did not for others. For six heats (391666, 201595, 410111, 410434, 310426 and 410754), all samples exceeded the minimum YS requirement. For three of the five heats with samples below the minimum YS (301000, 201596 and 310106), the average value exceeded the minimum requirement, with at least one sample below the minimum. Two heats (410078 and 201694) had average YS values below the minimum requirement. The elongation for all longitudinal seam weld samples exceeded the 6
P0214.doc minimum requirement. The elongation for the strip splice and orbital welds generally did not meet the minimum requirement. The reasons for the low yield strength of the orbital welds and the low elongation of strip splice and orbital welds are related to the lower strength of the autogenous weld metal and the orientation between these welds and the applied tensile stress. Autogenous girth welds are generally expected to experience strain accumulation within the weld metal during tensile loading transverse to the weld. Such loading is applied to these girth welds during a uniaxial tensile test. The strip splice weld, due to its helical orientation, is expected to exhibit behaviour that represents a composite of base metal and weld metal properties. As a result, the yield strength for the strip splice welds exceeded the minimum, while that for the orbital welds did not. Specifically, the yield strength of the as-cast weld structure of the autogenous weld is expected to be lower than that of the base metal. The strain for the orbital weld concentrates solely in the weld metal, while that for the strip splice weld is shared between base metal and weld metal. As a result, the yield strength for the strip splice weld tends to be higher. The same concept applies to the elongation. However, the elongation data for the strip splice welds also exhibited low values. This is due to the nature of how the strip splice weld fails and the operational characteristics of the tensile test equipment. When the strip splice weld fails during a uniaxial tensile test, it first separates in the center of the helical shaped weld. The failure then propagates through the strip splice weld metal in two directions following a helical orientation towards the two points of intersection with the longitudinal seam weld. In some instances, the tensile test equipment will terminate the test shortly after the initial rupture, but before the final ligament fails at the intersection with the longitudinal seam weld. In these situations, the elongation may be lower than those cases where the sample has separated into two pieces. When considering the reduced yield strength and elongation associated with the strip splice and orbital welds, it is important to recognize that they result from the fact that the welds are autogenous. In Section 9.7 the superior rotational fatigue behaviour of these welds is attributed to their uniform geometry which results directly from the fact that the welds are autogenous. One can therefore view the reduced yield strength and elongation as a trade-off for improved fatigue performance. 9.2 Tensile test data as a function of temperature Tensile tests at various temperatures were performed on tubing samples containing each of the three weld types. The yield strength (0.2% and 1% offset methods), ultimate tensile strength, and elongation in 2 in. (50.8 mm) were determined in accordance with ASTM A 370 [ref. 17], E 8 [ref. 18] and E 646 [ref. 19] for test temperatures of 20, + 22 and + 100 C ( 4, 72, and 212F). The test temperature tolerance was 5 C ( 9F). The results are reported in Table 21 along with the ambient temperature requirements of subsea umbilical tubing specifications in effect when the tubing was manufactured. The testing was performed by AK Steel. The test results reflect the expected changes in tensile behaviour as the test temperature is varied above and below ambient conditions. The data appear relatively consistent except for one orbital weld tested at 20 C ( 4F). No explanation is offered for the apparent low UTS and elongation associated with this test. 9.3 Assessment of the degree of cold work during tubing manufacturing Table 22 provides a comparison of tensile test data for tubing from various stages in the manufacturing process at Gibson Tube. Data for three of the four process stages are based upon only one test, while that for one stage was based upon 22 samples. All data is from one heat, number 310106. The purpose of this testing was to identify the degree of cold working/strain hardening resulting from the Gibson Tube manufacturing process. It should be noted that the data for the strip is as reported by AK Steel, while the data for the tubing was based upon testing by Gibson Tube. When comparing the tubing after final reeling with the strip, the data show an increase of approximately 9,300 psi (64 MPa) in ultimate tensile strength, no increase in yield strength and a 3 percentage point decrease in elongation. Once the tubing is coiled at the mill, the tensile behaviour remained relatively constant throughout the remaining manufacturing stages. It should be noted that Gibson Tube has made a conscious effort to minimize the degree of cold working of the tubing during the manufacturing stages. Two strategies were used to accomplish this objective. First, the tubing is coiled off the mill to a diameter ranging from 5 to 7-ft. (1.5 to 2.1 m) to minimize strain. Second, by combining the final eddy current test with the final reeling operation, the mill coil is only uncoiled and straightened once before final reeling. Table 23 compares tensile test data representing manufacturing stages at Gibson Tube and SeaCAT. The data for Gibson Tube are based upon 20 tests while that for SeaCAT are based upon two tests. The data are again from one heat, number 201595. The purpose of this data was to identify the degree of cold work resulting from the SeaCAT manufacturing process. When comparing tubing after the Gibson Tube mill coiler with that after the SeaCAT final acceptance test, the data show an increase of approximately 3,400 psi (23 MPa) in ultimate tensile strength, an 800 psi (5.5 MPa) increase in yield strength and a 2.6 percentage point decrease in elongation. 9.4 Hardness data for production tubing Hardness measurements were made at both ends of all mill coils in accordance with ASTM A 370 [ref. 17]. The average hardness, 95% confidence interval, maximum, and minimum values were determined for each heat. The data are summarized by heat for 950+ mill coils in Table 24. As shown, the average hardness for all heats is slightly below the maximum requirement for subsea umbilical tubing in effect at the time of manufacturing. However, the maximum values for eight of the eleven heats exceed the limit of HRC 25. As previously discussed, the maximum hardness requirement in the specification for subsea umbilical tubing is being increased to HRC 30. None of the tubing exceeds this value. 9.5 Additional hardness testing and traverses Five Vickers hardness HV 10 (nominal test force = 98.97 N [22.25 lbf]) test measurements were made 7
P0214.doc on the outside surface of the samples listed below from heat 301000 in accordance with ASTM E 92 [ref. 20]. Base metal region ~ 180away from the LSW on two LSW samples LSW weld metal region on two LSW samples SSW weld metal region on two SSW samples OW weld metal region on two OW samples This testing was performed by AK Steel. The average, minimum and maximum values for the five measurements are reported in Table 25. Conversion of the HV 10 hardness measurements to HRC results in all values being less than the maximum hardness requirement of HRC 25 in effect at the time the tubing was manufactured. A series of Vickers hardness HV 0.5 (nominal test force = 4.903 N [1.10 lbf]) test measurements were made on cross sections of all three weld types from heat 301000 in accordance with ASTM E 384 [ref. 21]. Each traverse was perpendicular to the axis (direction of travel) of the weld. The traverses were performed at approximately mid-thickness and consisted of 26 measurements spaced at approximately 0.020-in. (0.5 mm) arc distance increments. These traverses started in the base metal on one side of the weld 0.25-in. (6.35 mm) from the weld centerline and terminated at the same distance on the opposite side of the weld. This testing was performed by AK Steel. The results are reported in Tables 26, 27 and 28. In addition, the data from Tables 26 to 28 are plotted in Figures 7, 8, and 9. As expected, the hardness of the weld metal was lower than that of the base metal. The orbital welds had the lowest and most consistent hardness values. The higher and less consistent hardness values of the strip splice and longitudinal seam welds is attributed to the effects of forging and roll sizing. 9.6 Comparison of tensile and hardness properties to other stainless steels The tensile and hardness requirements for alloy 19D seam welded tubing are compared to those of two duplex (2507 and 2205) and two austenitic (304L and 316L) stainless steels in Table 29. Note that for alloy 19D both the requirements of ASTM A 789 and the recommended design requirements for subsea umbilical tubing based upon the orbital weld are included. Also note that two UNS designations for alloy 2205 (S32205 and S31803) are listed. As shown in the table, the minimum required tensile strength for alloy 19D umbilical tubing is somewhat less than that of alloy 2507 and greater than alloy 2205, UNS designation S32005. However, based upon Gibson Tube s extensive experience manufacturing S32205 seam welded tubing, the tensile strength, yield strength and hardness are expected to be slightly higher than those for alloy 19D, while its elongation would be slightly lower. The significant strength advantage of alloy 19D tubing over the two austenitic grades is readily apparent. 9.7 Rotational fatigue testing Rotational fatigue testing was performed on all three weld types from heat 301000. Thirty tests were planned for each of the three weld types, with ninety total tests. To date, sixty tests have been completed, twenty-four longitudinal seam, eighteen strip splice and eighteen orbital welds. Duco Ltd. performed the testing. During a test, the tubing is bent to produce the desired stress level on the outside surface of the tubing. A strain gauged sample was bent to various diameters and used to directly measure the stress on the outside surface. From this data, a calibration curve was determined and used to set the degree of bending needed to achieve the desired stress during testing. For all tests, the tubing was rotated at a maximum rate (RPM) such that the temperature of the test specimen remained below 25C (77F) during the test. The rotation of the tubing produces fully reversed fatigue loading. The stress range versus number of cycles to failure (SN) curves are plotted in Figures 10, 11, and 12 for the longitudinal seam (LSW), strip splice (SSW), and orbital welds (OW) respectively. Only a linear regression fit of the data and the upper and lower 95% confidence limits (CL) are plotted in each of these figures. The regression analysis and subsequent plotting of the linear fit and confidence limits were performed using OriginLabTM version 6.1 software. The confidence limit represents a central confidence interval on the mean number of cycles to failure at particular values along the fit line. In effect, the width of the interval provides an indication of how good the estimate of the mean was at particular points along the fit line. The linear regression analysis included only data points where failure occurred. The number of data points, by weld type, used in each of the three separate regression analyses was as follows: LSW: 24, SSW: 13, OW: 12. Data points where the test was stopped before failure were not included in the regression analysis. The B-curve from Table 8.4.1.b in Norwegian Standard NS 3742 E [ref. 22] has also been plotted in Figures 10 through 12. The B-curve is described by Equation (2) and provides a characteristic SN curve for structures in sea-water with cathodic protection. The B-curve allows the highest stress range and is based upon a constant stress range of 48 MPa (7,000 psi) beyond 2 x 108 cycles to failure. This curve is applicable to full penetration butt welds with the weld finished flush with the surface. The weld is assumed to be free of significant defects based upon the use of non-destructive examination. The B-curve is therefore applicable to the three types of welds found in alloy 19D seam welded tubing. N = 10(15.01 4 log ()) Where: N = number of cycles to failure = fully reversed stress range All alloy 19D data points (failed and stopped) and fit lines were well above the B-curve indicating that all three weld types exceeded the most stringent design criteria. In addition, the rotational fatigue performance of all three weld types is very similar. The current fit suggests that at high stress the strip splice weld may have the limiting lower bound while at low stress the orbital weld may have the limiting bound. This relative positioning of the linear data fit is related to the number of failure data points at low stress. Specifically, only the strip splice weld has a failure data point greater than 106 cycles. The data also suggest that the endurance limit for the strip splice and orbital welds may be as high as 400 MPa (58,000 psi). Note that this compares to an endurance limit of 48 MPa (7,000 psi) for the design curve. It is planned to continue the stopped tests to help establish the endurance limit. The remaining thirty tests (6 LSW, 12 SSW and 12 OW) are planned to both develop more data in the range of 104 to 107 cycles to failure and establish 8 (2)
P0214.doc the endurance limit. Current specifications for alloy 19D subsea umbilical tubing do not allow the use of orbital welds in the dynamic section. Based upon the similar performance of all three weld types, it appears appropriate to use both alloy 19D strip splice and orbital welds in the dynamic section. It would be desirable to compare the fatigue performance of orbital welds in seamless super duplex stainless steel (SDSS) umbilical tubing to those of alloy 19D. Unfortunately, no open literature data for representative automatic orbital welds in SDSS tubing were available for comparison. A significant number of orbital welds, one every 30 to 40 m (98 to 131 ft.), must be present in the dynamic section for any seamless SDSS umbilical tubing. Since these welds are likely to use added filler metal, their fatigue performance may be adversely influenced by the geometry of the weld. While specific data were not available, it was reported [ref. 23] that two curves describe a region of design SN curves for orbital welds in seamless SDSS. The differences between the curves in the region reportedly [ref. 23] relate to different tubing dimensions (diameter and wall thickness) and testing methods. The curves are based upon Equation (3) and represent the minus two standard deviation ( 2SD) limit for the best (upper curve) and worst (lower curve) sets of data within the region.
Log (N) = Log (a) 2SD 4Log (?s)
orbital welds have also been plotted in Figure 13 and identified as 2SD Limit 2507 OW Worst and Best Data Set respectively. Figure 13 demonstrates that the 2SD limit curves for all three alloy 19D welds fall within the upper 15% of the region of design SN curves for the 2507 orbital welds. The 2SD limit curve for the alloy 19D strip splice weld was the highest and slightly above that for the upper 2507 orbital weld curve. The 2SD limit curves for the alloy 19D longitudinal seam and orbital welds were slightly below the upper 2507 orbital weld curve. This relative positioning is related to the effect of both forcing the slope to 4 and the standard deviation. It should be noted that this treatment of the data provides a different relative comparison than the statistical treatment used in Figures 10 through 12. Observing where actual data points lie (both for alloy 19D and 2507) is also illuminating. Although the actual data points are not plotted, below approximately 590 MPa (85,500 psi) all alloy 19D strip splice and orbital weld data (both failed and stopped tests) exhibit higher fatigue strength than the 2507 orbital weld upper 2SD limit curve. It should be noted that the lower curve cut-off for the 2507 data was 200 MPa (29,000 psi) and the upper curve cut-off was 400 MPa (58,000 psi). Although alloy 19D strip splice and orbital welds above 590 MPa (85,500 psi) were slightly below the 2507 orbital weld upper 2SD limit curve, it reasonable to expect that they exceed comparable SDSS orbital weld data. The higher fatigue strength of the autogenous alloy 19D girth welds (strip splice and orbital) results from their uniform geometry. Regrettably, the inability to directly compare data points has hindered the comparison between alloy 19D and 2507. In addition, it is recognized that good engineering practice suggests proceeding with caution regarding the design of the dynamic section of an umbilical. However, on the basis of the available comparison it is reasonable to conclude that the alloy 19D girth welds (strip splice and orbital) exhibit similar if not superior fatigue performance compared to the 2507 orbital welds. It therefore does not appear reasonable to allow a larger number of welds with similar or potentially lower fatigue performance (orbital welds in SDSS) while
excluding a smaller number of welds with demonstrated similar if not higher fatigue performance (orbital welds in alloy 19D). Fatigue testing is currently being performed on an umbilical mock-up with autogenous alloy 19D orbital welds. The results of this testing should provide additional insight. 9.8 Burst testing Two samples for each of the three weld types were burst tested for each production heat. The samples were removed prior to the coiling operation at the tube mill. Tap water was used as the test media. Beginning at 0 psig, the pressure was increased in increments of 5,000 psig (34.5 GPa), held for one minute and then increased until the pressure reached approximately 80% of the calculated burst pressure (CBP). The pressure was then increased in increments of 1,000 psig (6.9 GPa) until the sample burst. The burst pressure and the region of the sample where the failure occurred were determined. A pressure versus time plot was recorded for each sample using a digital video recorder. The CBP was based upon Equation (4). This equation is derived from a draft ISO standard for subsea control umbilicals [ref. 24]. It is specifically derived from an equation in this standard used to calculate the maximum hoop stress at the bore for tubing with Do/tnom 20, where Do is the nominal outside diameter and tnom is the nominal wall thickness. This equation provides a conservative representation of the stress condition in comparison to the von Mises equivalent stress. Since the von Mises equivalent stress is still based upon the maximum stress at the inside surface, the actual burst pressure will be higher due to the lower average stress across the wall thickness.
CBP = (UTSmin x [(ODnom ) 2 (IDnom) 2])/[(ODnom )2 + (IDnom )2] (4)
(3)
Where: N = number of cycles to failure Log (a) = mean value of intercept SD = standard deviation of Log (a) ?s = fully reversed stress range The lower curve (worst) is the BCurve (intercept 15.01, slope 4) and the upper curve (best) has an intercept of 16.5 and slope 4. These curves were determined by a linear regression analysis in which the slope of the fit was forced to use 4. In order to compare the alloy 19D welds to these bounds, linear regression analyses were performed using the forced slope of 4. Using the intercept and standard deviation from this regression analysis and Equation (3), the 2SD limits were determined and are plotted in Figure 13 for each of the three alloy 19D weld types. The resulting intercepts for the three alloy 19D welds were LSW: 16.33, SSW: 16.51, and OW: 16.30. The upper and lower bound curves for the 2507
Where: UTSmin = minimum ultimate tensile strength (psi) ODnom = nominal outside diameter (in.) IDnom = nominal inside diameter (in.)
The results of the burst testing are shown in Table 30. Using the minimum UTS in effect at the time that the tubing was manufactured and the nominal tubing dimensions, the CBP for the tubing is 22,906 psi (158 MPa) based upon Equation (4) and 20,088 psi (139 MPa) based upon the 9
P0214.doc von Mises equivalent stress. It is important to note that the CBP does not represent a minimum required burst pressure. It is simply an estimate of the burst pressure subject to the limitations of the three inputs: predicted stress state, ultimate tensile strength and tubing dimensions. While each customer establishes specific minimum required burst pressures, it is expected that these minimum required values will be less than the CBP by a desired safety margin. The results shown in Table 30 indicate that the burst pressure for all of the tubing tested was in excess of the CBP using the minimum UTS in effect at the time of manufacture. Using the recently increased minimum UTS, the CBP for the tubing is 25,196 psi (174 MPa) based upon Equation (4) and 22,097 psi (152 MPa) based upon the von Mises equivalent stress. Only one of the sixty-six burst tests did not exceed the CBP calculated using Equation (4). Considering that the minimum required burst pressure will be significantly less than the CBP (calculated by either method), the burst pressure for all tubing tested is expected to readily exceed any minimum requirements. microstructural, and mechanical properties. 6. It appears appropriate to base design minimum tensile test requirements for subsea umbilical tubing on the orbital weld. Rotational fatigue testing of the three weld types in alloy 19D tubing demonstrated consistent behaviour, well above the standard design curve used for umbilical tubing. The rotational fatigue behaviour of alloy 19D orbital welds was comparable to that of alloy 19D strip splice and longitudinal seam welds and 2507 orbital welds. As a result, it appears reasonable to allow the use of alloy 19D orbital welds in the dynamic section of umbilical tubing. Seam welded alloy 19D tubing enables the production of long coils for subsea umbilical tubing applications with desirable properties and a greatly reduced number of girth welds when compared to seamless tubing. November 13-15, 2001. [3] V.T. Williams and C.M. Ross, Technical Improvements Incorporated in One Company s Subsea Umbilical and Distribution Systems, Paper Number OTC 13121, presented at the 2001 Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, April 30 to May 3, 2001. [4] ASTM A 240/A 240M-00, Standard Specification for HeatResisting Chromium and Chromium-Nickel Stainless Steel Plate, Sheet, and Strip for Pressure Vessels, 2001 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 01.03, Steel- Plate, Sheet, Strip, Wire; Stainless Steel Bar, American Society for Testing and Materials. [5] Section IX, Welding and Brazing Qualifications, ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, 1998 Edition. [6] ASTM A 789/A 789M-01a, Standard Specification for Seamless and Welded Ferritic/Austenitic Stainless Steel Tubing for General Service, 2001 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 01.01, SteelPiping, Tubing, Fittings, American Society for Testing and Materials. [7] Section V, Nondestructive Examination, Article 2, Radiographic Examination, ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, 1998 Edition. [8] BS EN 462-3: 1997, Nondestructive testing Image quality of radiographs, Part 3. Image quality classes for ferrous metals, British Standards Institute, 1997. [9] BS EN 462-1: 1994, Nondestructive testing Image quality of radiographs, Part 1. Image quality indicators (wire type) Determination of image quality value, British Standards Institute, 1994. [10] ASTM E 747-97, Standard Practice for Design, Manufacture and Material Grouping Classification of Wire Image Quality Indicators (IQI) Used for Radiology, 2000 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Section Three, Metals Test Methods and Analytical Procedures, Volume 03.03, Nondestructive Testing, American Society for Testing and Materials, 2000. [11] ASME B46.1-1995 (Revision of ANSI/ASME B46.1-1985), Surface Texture (Surface Roughness, Waviness, and Lay), The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1995. [12] ASTM 562-99, Standard Test 10
7.
8.
9.
Acknowledgements
Many personnel at Gibson Tube contributed to this effort. Phil Lewis of SeaCAT Corporation was the driving force behind the application of seam welded alloy 19D tubing for subsea umbilical applications. Richard Fletcher of TWI Ltd. directed the porosity acceptance criteria program. John Tack directed the various testing performed by AK Steel. Rotational fatigue testing was directed by Peter Fellows of Duco Ltd. In addition, Peter Fellows graciously shared his knowledge of umbilical tubing design and provided guidance with regard to various issues, especially the design of the porosity acceptance test program. Knut Ekeberg, Torfinn Ottesen and Stian Karlsen, Nexans Norway AS, demonstrated great patience and persistence in describing their design SN curves for orbital welds in alloy 2507 tubing.
10. Conclusions
1. Seam welded alloy 19D tubing offers advantages over other duplex and austenitic stainless steels. The lean composition of alloy 19D results in lower cost and essentially no propensity to form detrimental intermetallic phases. As a duplex stainless steel alloy 19D offers both increased mechanical properties and resistance to chloride stress corrosion cracking compared to austenitic stainless steels. Although the corrosion resistance of alloy 19D is reduced due to its lean composition, a continuous extruded external zinc anode or other means can be used to provide the required external corrosion resistance while its internal corrosion resistance is adequate for expected umbilical tubing service. Extensive testing of seam welded alloy 19D tubing and all associated welds from eleven production heats demonstrated desirable dimensional,
2.
3.
4.
References
[1] AK Steel, Product Data Bulletin Nitronic 19D, October 2000. [2] J.W. McEnerney, Alloy 19D (UNS S32001) seam welded lean duplex stainless steel tubing, paper number P0117, Stainless Steel World 2001 Conference, The Hague, the Netherlands,
5.
P0214.doc Method for Determining Volume Fraction by Systematic Manual Point Count, 2000 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 03.01, Metals- Mechanical Testing; Elevated and Low-Temperature Tests; Metallography, American Society for Testing and Materials. ASTM B 311-93 (1997), Test Method for Density Determination for Powder Metallurgy (P/M) Materials Containing Less than Two Percent Porosity, 2001 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 02.05, American Society for Testing and Materials. ASTM E 1461-92, Test Method for Thermal Diffusivity of Solids by the Flash Method, 2000 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 14.02, American Society for Testing and Materials. ASTM E 228-95, Test Method for Linear Thermal Expansion of Solid Materials With a Vitreous Silica Dilatometer, 2000 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 14.02, American Society for Testing and Materials. ASTM E 111-97, Standard Test Method for Young s Modulus, Tangent Modulus, and Chord Modulus, 2001 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 03.01, Metals Mechanical Testing; Elevated and Low-Temperature Tests; Metallography, American Society for Testing and Materials. ASTM A 370-97a, Standard Test Methods and Definitions for Mechanical Testing of Steel Products, 2001 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 01.03, Steel- Plate, Sheet, Strip, Wire; Stainless Steel Bar, American Society for Testing and Materials. ASTM E 8-00, Standard Test Methods for Tension Testing of Metallic Materials, 2001 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 03.01, Metals Mechanical Testing; Elevated and LowTemperature Tests; Metallography, American Society for Testing and Materials. ASTM E 646-98, Standard Test Method for Tensile StrainHardening Exponents (n-Values) of Metallic Sheet Materials, 2001 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 03.01, Metals Mechanical Testing; Elevated and Low-Temperature Tests; Metallography, American Society for Testing and Materials. ASTM E 92-82, Standard Test Method for Vickers Hardness of Metallic Materials, 2001 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 03.01, Metals Mechanical Testing; Elevated and LowTemperature Tests; Metallography, American Society for Testing and Materials. ASTM E 384-99, Standard Test Method for Microindentation Hardness of Materials, 2001 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 03.01, Metals Mechanical Testing; Elevated and Low-Temperature Tests; Metallography, American Society for Testing and Materials. Norwegian Standard NS 3472 E, Steel structures Design rules, 2nd edition June 1984. Private communications with Knut Ekeberg, Torfinn Ottesen and Stian Karlsen, Nexans Norway AS, October 3-5, 2001. ISO/DIS 13628-5, Petroleum and natural gas industries Design and operation of subsea production systems Part 5: Subsea control umbilicals, Draft.
[21]
[13]
[22] [23]
[14]
[24]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
11
P0214.doc Figures:
Figure 1: Typical forged longitudinal seam weld cross section showing uniform weld geometry on the outside and inside surfaces. The sample was removed from one end of a production mill coil of 0.625-in. OD x 0.065-in wall thickness(15.7-mm x 1.7-mm) tubing. Electrolytically etched in a NaOH solution.
Figure 2: Typical microstructure of strip, electrolytically etched in a NaOH solution, dark etching phase is ferrite.
Figure 3: Typical microstructure of strip splice weld (weld metal), electrolytically etched in a NaOH solution, dark etching phase is ferrite.
12
P0214.doc
Figure 4: Typical microstructure of longitudinal seam weld (weld metal), electrolytically etched in a NaOH solution, dark etching phase is ferrite.
Figure 5: Typical microstructure of welded tubing base metal, electrolytically etched in a NaOH solution, dark etching phase is ferrite.
Figure 6: Typical microstructure of orbital weld (weld metal), electrolytically etched in a NaOH solution, dark etching phase is ferrite.
13
P0214.doc
300
290 Base Metal HAZ LSW 280 HAZ Base Metal
270 Hardness (HV 0.5)
260
250
240
230
220
210
200 -0.25 -0.2 -0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 Position Relative to Weld Centerline (in)
Figure 7: Vickers hardness HV 0.5 test measurements at mid-thickness across longitudinal seam weld cross sections.
300
290 Base Metal HAZ SSW 280 HAZ Base Metal
260
250
240
230
220
210
200 -0,3 -0,2 -0,1 0 0,1 0,2 0,3
Position Relative to Weld Centerline (in)
Figure 8: Vickers hardness HV 0.5 test measurements at mid-thickness across strip splice weld cross sections.
14
P0214.doc
300
290 Base Metal HAZ OW 280 HAZ Base Metal
260
250
240
230
220
210
200 -0,3 -0,2 -0,1 0 0,1 0,2 0,3
Position Relative to Weld Centerline (in)
Figure 9: Vickers hardness HV 0.5 test measurements at mid-thickness across orbital weld cross sections.
Figure 10: Stress range versus cycles to failure (SN) for rotational fatigue testing of alloy 19D tubing samples from heat 301000 with only the longitudinal seam weld (LSW). The B-curve represents a characteristic SN design curve for structures in sea-water with cathodic protection based upon NS 3472E.
15
P0214.doc
Figure 11: Stress range versus cycles to failure (SN) for rotational fatigue testing of alloy 19D tubing samples from heat 301000 with a strip splice weld (SSW) at the center. The B-curve represents a characteristic SN design curve for structures in sea-water with cathodic protection based upon NS 3472E.
Figure 12: Stress range versus cycles to failure (SN) for rotational fatigue testing of alloy 19D tubing samples from heat 301000 with an orbital weld (OW) at the center. The B-curve represents a characteristic SN design curve for structures in sea-water with cathodic protection based upon NS 3472E.
16
P0214.doc
Figure 13: Stress range versus cycles to failure (SN) for rotational fatigue testing of alloy 19D tubing samples from heat 301000. The 2SD limit curves are plotted for all three alloy 19D welds types: samples with only the longitudinal seam weld (LSW), samples with a strip splice weld at the center (SSW), and samples with an orbital weld at the center (OW). Upper (best) and lower (worst) 2SD limit curves for a region of design SN curves for 2507 orbital welds are also plotted.
Tables: Element Weight % Spec. / Heat No. A 240 S32001 391666 301000 201595 201596 410078 201694 310106 410111 410434 310426 410754 Table 1: C 0.030 max. 0.026 0.024 0.025 0.027 0.025 0.026 0.026 0.026 0.030 0.027 0.028 Cr 19.5 21.5 19.84 19.83 19.75 19.76 19.76 19.72 19.78 19.80 19.78 19.78 19.90 Mn 4.0 6.0 5.18 5.06 5.07 5.07 4.96 5.11 5.00 4.98 5.15 5.14 5.03 Mo 0.60 max. 0.09 0.06 0.07 0.05 0.03 0.10 0.08 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.04 N 0.05 0.17 0.129 0.140 0.137 0.142 0.134 0.144 0.143 0.134 0.135 0.134 0.139 Ni 1.0 3.0 1.67 1.68 1.70 1.65 1.70 1.71 1.74 1.70 1.70 1.65 1.64 P 0.040 max. 0.026 0.024 0.022 0.022 0.021 0.020 0.023 0.022 0.025 0.023 0.024 S 0.030 max. 0.0013 0.0011 0.0005 0.0008 0.0009 0.0008 0.0007 0.0007 0.0005 0.0007 0.0007 Si 1.00 max. 0.38 0.41 0.40 0.38 0.37 0.39 0.38 0.39 0.40 0.38 0.39 Cu 1.00 max. 0.35 0.32 0.23 0.23 0.29 0.29 0.24 0.26 0.30 0.33 0.21
Chemical Composition of Alloy 19D Strip
17
P0214.doc ASTM A 240 Element Weight % Limit UNS No. (Alloy) S32750 (2507) S32205 (2205) S32001 (19D) S31603 (316L) S30403 (304L) Table 2: C 0.030 max. 0.030 max. 0.030 max. 0.030 max. 0.030 max. Cr 24.0 26.0 22.0 23.0 19.5 21.5 16.0 18.0 18.0 20.0 Mn 1.2 max. 2.00 max. 4.0 6.0 2.00 max. 2.00 max. Mo 3.0 5.0 3.0 3.5 0.60 max. 2.0 3.0 N 0.24 0.32 0.14 0.20 0.05 0.17 0.10 max. 0.10 max. Ni 6.0 8.0 4.5 6.5 1.0 3.0 10.0 14.0 8.0 12.0 P 0.035 max. 0.030 max. 0.040 max. 0.045 max. 0.045 max. S 0.020 max. 0.020 max. 0.030 max. 0.030 max. 0.030 max Si 0.8 max. 1.00 max. 1.00 max. 0.75 max. 0.75 max. Cu 0.5 max. 1.00 max. -
Comparison of the Chemical Composition for Various Duplex and Austenitic Stainless Steel Alloys
UNS No. (Alloy) S32750 (2507) S32205 (2205) S31603 (316L) S32001 (19D) S30403 (304L) Table 3:
PRE Range 37.74 to 47.62 34.14 to 37.75 22.60 to 29.50 20.30 to 26.20 18.00 to 21.60
Comparison of the PRE Range for Various Duplex and Austenitic Stainless Steel Alloys UTSa (psi) 90,000 min. 115,300 119,900 119,800 120,800 113,600 115,000 113,800 113,300 115,000 113,200 113,800 113,600 115,000 116,500 115,600 117,500 115,000 118,900 115,600 123,400 116,600 116,400 120,900 119,900 0.2 YSa (psi) 65,000 min. 87,400 79,900 81,800 81,800 84,000 85,800 83,900 85,100 79,100 78,400 79,600 81,300 83,000 84,700 78,400 85,100 81,900 86,500 83,400 87,600 82,100 83,200 92,400 84,500
Heat No. ASTM A 240 UNS S32001 391666 301000 301000 301000 201595 201595 201595 201595 201596 201596 410078 410078 201694 201694 310106 310106 310106 410111 410111 410434 410434 310426 410754 410754
E (%) 25 min. 38.3 48.7 46.0 46.0 42.7 41.7 41.4 41.9 45.4 40.6 41.8 41.9 41.9 41.4 43.9 45.1 41.8 42.2 41.2 40.8 41.0 41.0 38.8 41.9
Hardness HRC 25 max. HRB 99 HRC 22 HRC 22 HRC 22 HRC 20 HRC 20 HRC 19 HRC 21 HRC 22 HRC 20 HRC 20 HRC 21 HRC 21 HRC 21 HRC 21 HRC 20 HRC 21 HRC 22 HRC 21 HRC 21 HRC 21 HRC 21 HRC 22 HRC 22
Notes a. To convert from psi to MPa, multiply by 6.895 x 10-3. Table 4: Tensile and Hardness Test Data for Alloy 19D Strip 18
P0214.doc
Property / Heat Treatment Tensile Strength, min, ksi [MPa] Yield Strength, min, ksi [MPa] Elongation in 2 in., min, % Hardness, max, HB Hardness, max, HRC Heat treatment temperature Quench Table 5:
Proposed Requirement 90 [620] 65 [450] 25 290 30 1,800 1,950 F [982 1,066 C] Rapid cooling in air or water
Tensile, Hardness and Heat Treatment Requirements for UNS S32001 (Alloy 19D) Recently Added to ASTM A 789
19
P0214.doc Heat No. / Statistical Quantity ASTM A 789 Requirements Heat 391666 (84 Mill Coils) Average 95% Confidence Interval Maximum Minimum Heat 301000 (107 Mill Coils) Average 95% Confidence Interval Maximum Minimum Heat 201595 (79 Mill Coils) Average 95% Confidence Interval Maximum Minimum Heat 201596 (113 Mill Coils) Average 95% Confidence Interval Maximum Minimum Heat 410078 (100 Mill Coils) Average 95% Confidence Interval Maximum Minimum Heat 201694 (109 Mill Coils) Average 95% Confidence Interval Maximum Minimum Heat 310106 (85 Mill Coils) Average 95% Confidence Interval Maximum Minimum Heat 410111 (100 Mill Coils) Average 95% Confidence Interval Maximum Minimum Heat 410434 (109 Mill Coils) Average 95% Confidence Interval Maximum Minimum Heat 310426 (72 Mill Coils) Average 95% Confidence Interval Maximum Minimum Heat 410754 (14 Mill Coils) Average 95% Confidence Interval Maximum Minimum Outside Dia. Min. (in.) 0.6200.630 0.6250 0.0001 0.6260 0.6230 0.6243 0.0001 0.6260 0.6230 0.6244 0.0002 0.6260 0.6220 0.6242 0.0001 0.6260 0.6220 0.6242 0.0002 0.6270 0.6220 0.6238 0.0001 0.6260 0.6240 0.6237 0.0001 0.6250 0.6230 0.6244 0.0001 0.6260 0.6230 0.6255 0.0001 0.6270 0.6220 0.6252 0.0001 0.6270 0.6240 0.6250 0.0004 0.6260 0.6240 Outside Dia. Max. (in.) 0.6200.630 0.6265 0.0001 0.6280 0.6250 0.6264 0.0001 0.6280 0.6240 0.6264 0.0001 0.6270 0.6235 0.6263 0.0001 0.6280 0.6250 0.6263 0.0001 0.6280 0.6250 0.6263 0.0001 0.6280 0.6240 0.6264 0.0001 0.6280 0.6250 0.6264 0.0001 0.6290 0.6250 0.6273 0.0001 0.6280 0.6240 0.6274 0.0001 0.6280 0.6260 0.6274 0.0002 0.6280 0.6260 Wall Thickness Base Metal (in.) 0.05850.0715 0.0650 0.0001 0.0675 0.0630 0.0658 0.0001 0.0680 0.0635 0.0657 0.0001 0.0674 0.0648 0.0656 0.0001 0.0670 0.0640 0.0658 0.0001 0.0670 0.0638 0.0655 0.0001 0.0680 0.0630 0.0658 0.0001 0.0672 0.0645 0.0657 0.0001 0.0670 0.0638 0.0657 0.0001 0.0680 0.0600 0.0657 0.0001 0.0673 0.0640 0.0661 0.0002 0.0670 0.0650 Wall Thickness at Weld (in.) 0.05850.0715 0.0654 0.0001 0.0685 0.0630 0.0656 0.0002 0.0682 0.0630 0.0651 0.0002 0.0670 0.0630 0.0650 0.0001 0.0675 0.0628 0.0655 0.0001 0.0674 0.0635 0.0649 0.0001 0.0685 0.0630 0.0652 0.0001 0.0686 0.0635 0.0653 0.0002 0.0676 0.0635 0.0654 0.0001 0.0695 0.0600 0.0651 0.0002 0.0670 0.0627 0.0654 0.0003 0.0668 0.0635
To convert from inches to mm, multiply by 25.4. Table 6: Dimensional Data for Alloy 19D Seam Welded Tubing from Production Mill Coils
20
P0214.doc Outside Diameter (in.)a 0.620 to 0.630 (0.005-in.) 0.626 0.626 0.626 0.625 Wall Thickness (in.)a 0.0585 to 0.0715 (10%) 0.064 0.067 0.067 0.065 0.064 0.065 0.065 0.067 0.066 0.066 0.068 0.065 0.065 0.064 0.065 0.066 0.065 0.066 0.065 0.065 0.067 0.066 0.064 0.064 0.064 0.066 0.065
Sample No. Variation allowed by ASTM A 789 LSW-10-114 LSW-10-114 LSW-10-114 LSW-10-114 LSW-10-114 LSW-10-114 LSW-10-114 LSW-10-114 Avg. LSW-10-115 LSW-10-115 LSW-10-115 LSW-10-115 LSW-10-115 LSW-10-115 LSW-10-115 LSW-10-115 Avg. LSW-10-116 LSW-10-116 LSW-10-116 LSW-10-116 LSW-10-116 LSW-10-116 LSW-10-116 LSW-10-116
Orientation
Weld 0 45 90 135 180 225 270 315 Weld 0 45 90 135 180 225 270 315 Weld 0 45 90 135 180 225 270 315
0.626 0.626 0.625 0.626 0.625
0.626 0.625 0.625 0.625 0.625
Avg. Notes a. To convert from inches to mm, multiply by 25.4. Table 7:
0.625
Additional Detailed Dimensional Analysis of Alloy 19D Tubing Samples From Heat 301000
21
P0214.doc Ra ( in.)b 14.7 13.2 3.9 22.7 13.6 42.2 9.8 49.6 14.1 28.9 24.9 7.1 5.4 12.3 12.4 38.0 12.7 49.3 11.5 27.9 17.8 24.4 9.4 12.0 15.9 21.1 14.4 11.4 10.7 14.4 Ry ( in.)c 129.5 132.3 32.7 258.7 138.3 258.3 94.1 304.3 118.9 193.9 177.2 204.7 65.0 150.4 149.3 303.5 98.8 252.4 87.4 185.5 113.8 258.3 129.1 157.1 139.6 163.0 127.2 74.8 116.9 120.5 Rz ( in.)d 104.2 81.2 24.9 152.6 90.7 222.2 73.1 268.6 93.1 164.3 139.1 80.5 41.7 120.0 95.3 219.1 86.1 218.6 74.4 149.6 96.5 187.8 81.3 103.1 117.2 138.2 101.9 63.9 79.1 95.8 Rq ( in.)e 18.9 17.9 5.1 30.9 18.2 52.3 12.7 63.2 18.0 36.6 31.2 12.8 7.6 18.3 17.5 49.0 15.9 60.2 14.6 34.9 22.0 36.8 14.1 16.2 22.3 26.7 18.3 13.8 13.5 18.1
Sample No. LSW-10-114 LSW-10-114 LSW-10-114 LSW-10-114 OD Avg. LSW-10-114 LSW-10-114 LSW-10-114 LSW-10-114 ID Avg. LSW-10-115 LSW-10-115 LSW-10-115 LSW-10-115 OD Avg. LSW-10-115 LSW-10-115 LSW-10-115 LSW-10-115 ID Avg. LSW-10-116 LSW-10-116 LSW-10-116 LSW-10-116 OD Avg. LSW-10-116 LSW-10-116 LSW-10-116 LSW-10-116 ID Avg.
Surfacea OD OD OD OD
Orientation Weld 0 90 180 270 Weld 0 90 180 270 Weld 0 90 180 270 Weld 0 90 180 270 Weld 0 90 180 270 Weld 0 90 180 270
ID ID ID ID
OD OD OD OD
ID ID ID ID
OD OD OD OD
ID ID ID ID
Notes OD = outside surface; ID = inside surface. Ra = arithmetic mean deviation of profile. Ry = maximum height of the profile. Rz = ten-point height of irregularities. Rq = root-mean-square deviation of the profile. To convert from inches to mm, multiply by 25.4. Table 8: Surface Roughness Parameters for Alloy 19D Tubing Samples From Heat 301000
22
P0214.doc Heat No. Aima Acceptable Rangea 391666 301000 201595 201596 410078 201694 310106 410111 410434 310426 410754 % Ferrite 45 to 50 35 to 60 50.3 46.8 45.4 48.3 45.2 51.7 41.6 51.4 41.4 44.4 51.1 95% CI % RA
3.6 4.0 4.4 3.9 3.4 4.6 3.2 3.2 3.2 4.1 3.2
7.1 8.5 9.6 8.1 7.5 8.9 7.6 6.1 7.7 9.2 6.2
Notes a. The requirements are based upon current subsea umbilical tubing specifications. Table 9: Ferrite Point Count Data for Alloy 19D Strip
Heat No. / Region Evaluated Aima Acceptable Rangea Heat 391666 Base metal Weld metal Heat 301000 Base metal Weld metal Heat 201595 Base metal Weld metal Heat 201596 Base metal Weld metal Heat 410078 Base metal Weld metal Heat 201694 Base metal Weld metal Heat 310106 Base metal Weld metal Heat 410111 Base metal Weld metal Heat 410434 Base metal Weld metal Heat 310426 Base metal Weld metal Heat 410754 Base metal Weld metal
% Ferrite 45 to 50 35 to 60 46.9 49.9 43.3 52.1 46.5 49.5 47.0 49.3 44.7 49.8 47.4 48.6 49.8 51.0 49.7 48.8 40.7 44.6 44.3 50.9 49.1 50.6
95% CI
% RA
3.4 4.6 3.5 4.1 3.1 3.8 3.3 4.2 4.0 4.0 2.5 3.8 3.3 3.8 3.9 3.9 4.0 2.6 3.2 3.9 2.1 2.1
7.2 9.2 8.1 7.8 6.6 7.7 7.1 8.4 9.0 8.0 5.3 7.8 6.7 7.5 7.9 7.9 9.8 5.8 7.2 7.6 4.3 4.3
Notes a. The requirements are based upon current subsea umbilical tubing specifications. Table 10: Ferrite Point Count Data for Alloy 19D Longitudinal Seam Welds
23
P0214.doc Heat No. / Region Evaluated Aima Acceptable Rangea Heat 391666 Base metal Weld metal Heat 301000 Base metal Weld metal Heat 201595 Base metal Weld metal Heat 201596 Base metal Weld metal Heat 410078 Base metal Weld metal Heat 201694 Base metal Weld metal Heat 310106 Base metal Weld metal Heat 410111 Base metal Weld metal Heat 410434 Base metal Weld metal Heat 310426 Base metal Weld metal Heat 410754 Base metal Weld metal 95% CI
% Ferrite 45 to 50 35 to 60 47.8 47.3 42.1 50.9 44.3 49.8 44.4 51.4 45.9 50.0 44.8 49.8 46.9 50.5 48.8 52.0 42.3 45.2 45.0 49.4 47.8 53.6
% RA
3.1 2.7 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.9 3.4 2.9 3.1 3.5 4.1 2.9 3.8 3.6 2.9 3.7 3.9 3.3 3.0 2.4 2.7 3.3
6.6 5.7 9.2 7.5 8.5 7.9 7.7 5.6 6.8 7.0 9.2 5.7 8.2 7.1 5.9 7.1 9.2 7.3 6.6 4.8 5.6 6.1
Notes a. The requirements are based upon current subsea umbilical tubing specifications. Table 11: Ferrite Point Count Data for Alloy 19D Strip Splice Welds
24
P0214.doc Heat No. / Region Evaluated Aima Acceptable Rangea Heat 391666 (7 samples) Base metal Weld metal Heat 301000 (10 samples) Base metal Weld metal Heat 201595 (6 samples) Base metal Weld metal Heat 201596 (9 samples) Base metal Weld metal Heat 410078 (13 samples) Base metal Weld metal Heat 201694 (16 samples) Base metal Weld metal Heat 310106 (12 samples) Base metal Weld metal Heat 410111 (9 samples) Base metal Weld metal Heat 410434 (12 samples) Base metal Weld metal Heat 310426 (10 samples) Base metal Weld metal Heat 410754 (2 samples) Base metal Weld metal % Ferrite Range 45 to 50 35 to 60 43.3 49.6 41.1 48.6 41.8 51.0 39.1 48.0 41.4 46.4 44.1 50.6 43.3 49.3 41.0 46.6 42.2 48.7 39.0 48.9 40.4 49.6 40.9 51.6 42.8 48.9 38.9 48.1 39.9 48.8 47.6 53.9 44.3 49.3 43.7 50.4 44.8 48.0 43.9 50.5 44.3 47.3 47.2 47.6
95% CIb
% RAb
5.6, 5.1 3.3, 4.4 3.4, 3.5 3.8, 3.6 5.3, 5.0 3.4, 4.2 4.3, 3.7 4.4, 4.9 4.8, 3.2 3.7, 2.6 3.5, 4.6 3.4, 4.9 3.4, 3.3 3.1, 3.3 3.7, 3.5 3.6, 3.9 3.0, 2.5 2.4, 4.4 3.6, 2.9 3.4, 2.8 2.1, 2.4 3.3, 3.1
12.8, 10.2 7.9, 9.0 8.1, 6.8 9.8, 7.5 12.6, 10.8 7.7, 8.3 10.0, 7.5 10.6, 10.4 11.4, 6.6 9.4, 5.3 8.8, 9.3 8.3, 9.4 7.9, 6.8 8.0, 6.9 9.4, 7.1 7.6, 7.1 6.8, 5.1 5.4, 8.7 8.0, 6.1 7.8, 5.5 4.7, 5.0 6.9, 6.5
Notes a. The requirements are based upon current subsea umbilical tubing specifications. b. Values corresponding to limits of % ferrite range. Table 12: Ferrite Point Count Data for Alloy 19D Orbital Welds Temperature ( C) 25 260 538 Specific Heat (J/g-K) 0.471 0.548 0.684
Table 13: Specific Heat Data For Alloy 19D Strip Samples from Heat 301000 Temperature ( C) 25 260 538 Thermal Conductivity (W/m-K) 15.9 18.9 22.9
Table 14: Thermal Conductivity Data for Alloy 19D Strip Samples from Heat 301000 Temperature ( C) 20 + 20 + 100 Coefficient of Thermal Expansion (L/L/ C) 14.11 x 10-6 14.42 x 10-6 15.04 x 10-6
Table 15: Coefficient of Thermal Expansion Data for Alloy 19D Strip Samples from Heat 301000 Stainless Steel World2001 KCI Publishing BV 25
P0214.doc Test Temp. ( C) 20 20 + 21 + 21 + 100 + 100 Modulus of Elasticity (psi)a 30.2 x 106 30.3 x 106 29.1 x 106 31.3 x 106 28.5 x 106 31.9 x 106
Sample No. LSW-10-108 LSW-10-109 LSW-10-106 LSW-10-107 LSW-10-110 LSW-10-111 Notes a. Average of three tests.
Table 16: Modulus of Elasticity Data For Alloy 19D Tubing Samples from Heat 301000
Alloy / Property Density (g/cm3) Specific Heat (J/g-K) Thermal Conductivity (W/m-K) Coefficient of Thermal Expansion (L/L/ C) x10-6 Modulus of Elasticity (GPa)
304 / 304L 7.94 0.500 16.3 16.6 193
316 / 316L 8.03 0.450 16.2 16.5 200
19D 7.77 0.471 15.9 14.4 208b
2205 7.85 0.470 14.0 13.7 200
2507 7.80 0.470 14.0 13.5 200
Notes a. Data reported are for a temperature of approximately 20C. b. Data based upon seam welded tubing samples. Table 17: Comparison of Physical Properties of Alloy 19D With Various Stainless Steels UTSa,b (psi) 100,000 min. 110,969 112,705 111,800 112,050 117,500 113,900 113,600 113,250 116,800 114,150 115,850 YSa,b (psi) 80,000 min. 86,245 85,166 86,500 85,200 87,600 85,800 93,950 92,350 80,850 92,400 93,850 Eb (%) 25 min. 26.3 24.2 17.0 15.4 24.2 20.5 14.0 14.3 25.9 13.8 10.6
Heat No. Requirementsc 391666 301000 201595 201596 410078 201694 310106 410111 410434 310426 410754
Notes a. To convert from psi to MPa, multiply by 6.895 x 10-3. b. Average of two tests. c. The requirements are based upon subsea umbilical tubing specifications in effect when the tubing was manufactured. Table 18: Tensile Test Data for Alloy 19D Strip Splice Welds
26
P0214.doc Heat / Statistical Quantity Requirements

b
UTS (psi)a 100,000 min. 121,269 779 132,173 113,793 123,209 511 126,956 120,175 123,081 1,063 128,800 118,803 125,260 923 130,700 121,551 126,274 862 129,900 121,800 123,425 944 131,200 118,900 125,905 846 130,100 122,200 125,262 765 129,100 121,200 126,871 1,011 132,500 122,000 127,271 1,336 132,100 123,000 125,600 2,651 128,900 123,100
YS (psi)a 80,000 min. 86,923 1,053 99,107 80,000 87,832 1,093 97,391 80,400 91,076 1,955 97,413 82,500 86,473 1,663 94,500 80,400 84,543 1,227 92,500 80,500 85,631 2,149 101,709 80,600 83,773 1,087 89,000 80,100 83,981 812 89,900 81,200 84,354 1,372 94,600 80,200 83,824 1,734 94,300 80,000 84,500 3,868 88,700 80,700
E (%) 25 min. 42.0 0.7 47.0 31.0 42.7 0.8 47.0 34.0 41.1 1.2 44.0 34.8 41.6 0.7 45.5 38.0 39.3 1.1 44.2 33.4 40.4 1.0 45.5 35.6 40.2 0.9 43.8 34.0 39.2 0.8 43.3 35.5 40.3 0.8 43.7 34.2 39.5 1.5 44.6 31.8 40.2 1.8 42.7 38.3
Heat 391666 (71 Samples) Average 95% Confidence Interval Maximum Minimum Heat 301000 (45 Samples) Average 95% Confidence Interval Maximum Minimum Heat 201595 (20 Samples) Average 95% Confidence Interval Maximum Minimum Heat 201596 (29 Samples) Average 95% Confidence Interval Maximum Minimum Heat 410078 (23 Samples) Average 95% Confidence Interval Maximum Minimum Heat 201694 (28 Samples) Average 95% Confidence Interval Maximum Minimum Heat 310106 (22 Samples) Average 95% Confidence Interval Maximum Minimum Heat 410111 (26 Samples) Average 95% Confidence Interval Maximum Minimum Heat 410434 (28 Samples) Average 95% Confidence Interval Maximum Minimum Heat 310426 (17 Samples) Average 95% Confidence Interval Maximum Minimum Heat 410754 4( Samples) Average 95% Confidence Interval Maximum Minimum
Notes a. To convert from psi to MPa, multiply by 6.895 x 10-3. b. The requirements are based upon subsea umbilical tubing specifications in effect when the tubing was manufactured. Table 19: Tensile Test Data for Alloy 19D Seam Welded Tubing from Production Mill Coils
27
P0214.doc Heat / Statistical Quantity Requirements

b
UTS (psi)a 100,000 min. 110,346 2,038 113,392 108,695 113,431 1,210 116,100 109,482 111,709 1,915 114,782 107,758 113,331 1,439 116,700 108,800 115,823 1,378 119,700 110,400 112,100 845 115,400 109,900 113,667 1,122 117,100 110,200 113,760 2,095 121,700 110,100 114,983 1,055 118,100 112,200 113,270 1,064 116,500 109,700 113,850 1,078 114,400 113,300
YS (psi)a 80,000 min. 88,168 4,603 94,642 84,347 85,534 3,370 94,782 76,700 89,287 4,334 96,551 83,333 80,842 3,502 94,736 74,000 79,885 1,758 84,300 72,200 77,881 1,281 83,200 73,500 82,183 4,126 96,600 74,600 82,080 2,411 92,700 80,000 82,592 1,746 90,600 80,100 81,470 1,033 85,200 80,200 83,100 5,292 85,800 80,400
E (%) 25 min. 19.0 4.8 25.0 13.0 24.4 2.4 31.0 13.0 22.0 2.1 25.0 19.0 20.3 3.7 25.8 11.4 24.8 1.0 27.6 21.1 16.4 2.3 26.1 10.5 21.5 2.3 25.7 13.0 20.4 3.2 25.5 12.8 19.7 1.9 25.3 14.8 21.5 2.0 25.2 14.9 22.8 3.4 24.5 21.0
Heat 391666 (4 Reels) Average 95% Confidence Interval Maximum Minimum Heat 301000 (12 Reels) Average 95% Confidence Interval Maximum Minimum Heat 201595 (6 Reels) Average 95% Confidence Interval Maximum Minimum Heat 201596 (10 Reels) Average 95% Confidence Interval Maximum Minimum Heat 410078 (13 Reels) Average 95% Confidence Interval Maximum Minimum Heat 201694 (16 Reels) Average 95% Confidence Interval Maximum Minimum Heat 310106 (12 Reels) Average 95% Confidence Interval Maximum Minimum Heat 410111 (10 Reels) Average 95% Confidence Interval Maximum Minimum Heat 410434 (12 Reels) Average 95% Confidence Interval Maximum Minimum Heat 310426 (10 Reels) Average 95% Confidence Interval Maximum Minimum Heat 410754 (2 Reels) Average 95% Confidence Interval Maximum Minimum
Notes a. To convert from psi to MPa, multiply by 6.895 x 10-3. b. The requirements are based upon subsea umbilical tubing specifications in effect when the tubing was manufactured. Table 20: Tensile Test Data for Alloy 19D Orbital Welds from Production Reels
28
P0214.doc Specification / Sample Requirementsa Long. Seam Welds LSW-10-100 LSW-10-101 LSW-10-102 LSW-10-103 LSW-10-104 LSW-10-105 Strip Splice Welds SSW-7-110 SSW-7-127 SSW-7-132 SSW-7-134 SSW-7-135 SSW-7-136 Orbital Welds OW-82-102 OW-82-105 OW-82-127 OW-82-128 OW-82-130 OW-82-134 Test Temp. ( C) Ambient (+ 22) 20 20 + 22 + 22 + 100 + 100 20 20 + 22 + 22 + 100 + 100 20 20 + 22 + 22 + 100 + 100 UTS (psi) 100,000 min. 146,100 144,900 120,900 120,300 103,300 100,900 131,700 132,300 116,800 112,800 96,100 Sample 108,600 129,500 110,200 107,700 91,400 92,700 0.2% YS (psi) 80,000 min. 93,800 93,900 85,000 84,200 74,100 72,700 93,900 94,200 85,400 84,400 73,400 Destroyed 83,000 82,700 77,500 77,600 65,200 66,300 1% YS (psi) None 104,400 103,900 93,600 93,500 81,400 79,500 103,500 104,100 95,400 93,900 80,700 E (%) 25 min. 38.1 38.3 40.6 40.4 32.6 31.7 23.6 24.7 25.9 22.8 14.6
98,400 96,800 89,900 89,400 75,900 76,900
9.2 25.2 19.9 16.9 12.2 12.6
Notes a. Based upon ambient temperature requirements of subsea umbilical tubing specifications in effect when the tubing was manufactured. Table 21: Tensile Test Data for Alloy 19D Longitudinal Seam, Strip Splice and Orbital Weld Samples From Heat 301000 Manufacturing Stage Requirements
b
Stripc Tubing, after mill eddy currentd Average of 22 samples after mill coiler Tubing, after orbital weld straightnerd Tubing, after final reelingd
UTSa (psi) 100,000 min. 116,033 122,400 125,905 125,300 125,300
YSa (psi) 80,000 min. 81,800 82,800 83,773 82,700 81,600
E (%) 25 min. 43.6 41.1 40.2 41.5 40.8
Notes a. To convert from psi to MPa, multiply by 6.895 x 10-3. b. The requirements are based upon subsea umbilical tubing specifications in effect when the tubing was manufactured. c. As reported by AK Steel. d. Data are from one sample. Table 22: Comparison of Tensile Test Data for Alloy 19D Tubing Samples from Heat 310106 At Various Stages in the Gibson Tube Manufacturing Process Heat No. / Coil Identification / Manufacturing Stage Requirementsb Average of 20 samples after mill coiler at Gibson Tube SG-382, Mill Coil 66 After FAT at SeaCATc UTSa (psi) 100,000 min. 123,081 126,500 YSa (psi) 80,000 min. 91,076 92,300
E (%) 25 min. 41.1 38.9
Notes a. To convert from psi to MPa, multiply by 6.895 x 10-3. b. The requirements are based upon subsea umbilical tubing specifications in effect when the tubing was manufactured. c. Average of two tests. Table 23: Comparison of Tensile Test Data for Alloy 19D Tubing Samples from Heat 201595 Representing Manufacturing Stages at Gibson Tube and SeaCAT Stainless Steel World2001 KCI Publishing BV 29
P0214.doc Heat / Statistical Quantity Requirementsa Heat 391666 (84 Mill Coils ) Average 95% Confidence Interval Maximum Minimum Heat 301000 (107 Mill Coils) Average 95% Confidence Interval Maximum Minimum Heat 201595 (79 Mill Coils) Average 95% Confidence Interval Maximum Minimum Heat 201596 (113 Mill Coils) Average 95% Confidence Interval Maximum Minimum Heat 410078 (100 Mill Coils) Average 95% Confidence Interval Maximum Minimum Heat 201694 (109 Mill Coils) Average 95% Confidence Interval Maximum Minimum Heat 310106 (85 Mill Coils) Average 95% Confidence Interval Maximum Minimum Heat 410111 (100 Mill Coils) Average 95% Confidence Interval Maximum Minimum Heat 410434 (109 Mill Coils) Average 95% Confidence Interval Maximum Minimum Heat 310426 (72 Mill Coils) Average 95% Confidence Interval Maximum Minimum Heat 410754 (14 Mill Coils) Average 95% Confidence Interval Maximum Minimum Hardness (HRC) 25 max. 24.0 0.2 27.4 20.0 24.4 0.2 28.4 21.4 24.6 0.2 27.7 20.2 24.8 0.2 28.2 20.0 24.0 0.1 26.5 21.2 24.4 0.2 27.9 19.4 24.0 0.1 26.3 21.8 23.7 0.1 25.0 21.6 23.0 0.2 28.8 18.2 21.9 0.2 24.8 18.8 22.1 0.5 24.0 20.0
Notes a. The requirements are based upon subsea umbilical tubing specifications in effect when the tubing was manufactured. Table 24: Hardness Test Data for Alloy 19D Seam Welded Tubing from Production Mill Coils
30
P0214.doc Average HV 10 Hardnessb 258 245 247 253 246 243 231 233 Minimum HV 10 Hardnessb 253 242 243 251 242 237 211 227 Maximum HV 10 Hardnessb 261 251 251 254 252 249 249 237
Weld Type / Sample Number Long. Seam Weld LSW-10-112 LSW-10-112 LSW-10-113 LSW-10-113 Strip Splice Weld SSW-7-137 SSW-7-138 Orbital Weld OW-82-137 OW-82-138
Test Locationa BM LSW BM LSW SSW SSW OW OW
Notes a. Test location key: BM = base metal, LSW = longitudinal seam weld metal, SSW = strip splice weld metal, OW = orbital weld metal. b. Five Vickers hardness test measurements were made on the outside surface using a Vickers test force HV 10. Table 25: Vickers Hardness Test Measurements For Alloy 19D Tubing Samples from Heat 301000
Test Locationa BM BM BM BM BM BM BM BM HAZ LSW LSW LSW LSW LSW LSW LSW LSW HAZ BM BM BM BM BM BM BM BM
Approximate Arc Distance From Weld Centerline (in.) 0.25 0.23 0.21 0.19 0.17 0.15 0.13 0.11 0.09 0.07 0.05 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.09 0.11 0.13 0.15 0.17 0.19 0.21 0.23 0.25
LSW-10-112 HV 0.5 Hardnessb 268 258 260 257 258 254 264 263 254 247 246 228 252 245 247 252 240 248 264 251 257 264 259 265 267 255
LSW-10-113 HV 0.5 Hardnessb 260 262 258 258 260 252 252 253 261 253 244 236 249 236 233 248 238 256 265 260 254 259 263 264 265 254
Notes a. Test location key: BM = base metal, HAZ = heat affected zone, LSW = longitudinal seam weld metal. b. Vickers hardness test measurements were made on a weld cross section at approximately the mid-thickness using a Vickers test force HV 0.5. The measurements were spaced at increments of 0.020-in. (0.5 mm). Table 26: Vickers Hardness Test Measurements for Alloy 19D Longitudinal Seam Weld Cross Sections from Heat 301000
31
P0214.doc Distance From Weld Centerline (in.) 0.25 0.23 0.21 0.19 0.17 0.15 0.13 0.11 0.09 0.07 0.05 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.09 0.11 0.13 0.15 0.17 0.19 0.21 0.23 0.25 SSW-7-137 HV 0.5 Hardnessb 266 271 270 267 267 266 260 261 264 248 254 246 260 249 248 245 245 260 266 260 263 260 255 263 263 263 SSW-7-138 HV 0.5 Hardnessb 265 276 268 271 266 270 269 262 267 249 241 249 255 236 261 268 245 254 259 265 262 261 265 262 260 271
Test Locationa BM BM BM BM BM BM BM BM HAZ SSW SSW SSW SSW SSW SSW SSW SSW HAZ BM BM BM BM BM BM BM BM
Notes a. Test location key: BM = base metal, HAZ = heat affected zone, SSW = strip splice weld metal. b. Vickers hardness test measurements were made on a weld cross section at approximately the mid-thickness using a Vickers test force HV 0.5. The measurements were spaced at increments of 0.020-in. (0.5 mm). Table 27: Vickers Hardness Test Measurements for Alloy 19D Strip Splice Weld Cross Sections from Heat 301000
32
P0214.doc Distance From Weld Centerline (in.) 0.25 0.23 0.21 0.19 0.17 0.15 0.13 0.11 0.09 0.07 0.05 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.09 0.11 0.13 0.15 0.17 0.19 0.21 0.23 0.25 OW-82-137 HV 0.5 Hardnessb 262 263 260 262 264 267 262 252 250 218 213 227 228 227 222 235 228 251 253 255 255 252 251 248 253 248 OW-82-138 HV 0.5 Hardnessb 261 260 251 252 253 252 256 249 237 232 232 223 224 228 234 228 217 240 256 260 260 252 249 244 254 253
Test Locationa BM BM BM BM BM BM BM BM HAZ OW OW OW OW OW OW OW OW HAZ BM BM BM BM BM BM BM BM
Notes a. Test location key: BM = base metal, HAZ = heat affected zone, OW = orbital weld metal. b. Vickers hardness test measurements were made on a weld cross section at approximately the mid-thickness using a Vickers test force HV 0.5. The measurements were spaced at increments of 0.020-in. (0.5 mm). Table 28: Vickers Hardness Test Measurements for Alloy 19D Orbital Weld Cross Sections from Heat 301000 UTSa, min. (psi) 116,000 95,000 90,000 90,000 100,000 70,000 70,000 YSa, min. (psi) 80,000 70,000 65,000 65,000 70,000 25,000 25,000
ASTM Specification / Grade (UNS Designation)) A 789 / 2507 (S32750) A 789 / 2205 (S32205) A 789 / 2205 (S31803) A 789 / 19D (S32001) Alloy 19D subsea umbilical tubingb A 249 / 316L (S31603) A 249 / 304L (S30403)
E, min. (%) 15 25 25 25 10 35 35
Hardness, Max. HRC 32 HRC 30.5 HRC 30.5 HRC 30 HRC 30 HRB 90 HRB 90
Notes a. To convert from psi to MPa, multiply by 6.895 x 10-3. b. Recommended design requirements for subsea umbilical tubing based upon the limiting values of the orbital weld. Table 29: Comparison of Tensile and Hardness Requirements for Various Duplex and Austenitic Stainless Steel Welded Tubing Specifications
33
P0214.doc Test 1 Burst Pressurea (psi) 26,000 26,500 26,000 26,500 25,000 26,500 27,910 27,390 27,550 25,610 26,670 27,830 28,150 26,590 27,500 27,450 27,100 27,850 27,390 27,740 27,850 26,750 27,140 24,640 25,580 25,540 25,410 27,320 27,640 27,370 28,100 28,510 27,780 Test 2 Burst Pressurea (psi) 26,000 26,000 26,500 26,000 26,000 26,500 27,980 27,200 27,630 25,860 27,340 25,670 28,220 26,470 27,470 27,640 27,470 27,940 28,330 28,300 27,740 27,060 27,240 27,060 25,850 25,620 25,590 27,480 27,550 27,050 28,330 28,570 27,830
Heat / Sample Heat 391666 Strip splice weld Longitudinal seam weld Orbital weld Heat 301000 Strip splice weld Longitudinal seam weld Orbital weld Heat 201595 Strip splice weld Longitudinal seam weld Orbital weld Heat 201596 Strip splice weld Longitudinal seam weld Orbital weld Heat 410078 Strip splice weld Longitudinal seam weld Orbital weld Heat 201694 Strip splice weld Longitudinal seam weld Orbital weld Heat 310106 Strip splice weld Longitudinal seam weld Orbital weld Heat 410111 Strip splice weld Longitudinal seam weld Orbital weld Heat 410434 Strip splice weld Longitudinal seam weld Orbital weld Heat 310426 Strip splice weld Longitudinal seam weld Orbital weld Heat 410754 Strip splice weld Longitudinal seam weld Orbital weld
Test 1 Failure Locationb SSW LSW LSW LSW LSW OW SSW LSW OW LSW LSW OW SSW LSW OW SSW LSW OW SSW LSW OW SSW LSW OW SSW BM OW SSW LSW OW SSW LSW OW
Test 2 Failure Locationb SSW LSW LSW LSW LSW OW SSW LSW OW LSW LSW Fitting SSW LSW LSW SSW LSW OW SSW LSW OW SSW LSW OW SSW LSW LSW LSW LSW OW SSW LSW OW
Notes a. To convert from psi to MPa, multiply by 6.895 x 10-3. b. Key to failure location: SSW = strip splice weld, LSW = longitudinal seam weld, OW= orbital weld, Fitting = failure or disengagement of fitting at indicated pressure. Table 30: Burst Test Data for Alloy 19D Tubing
34

Duplex Mcenerney

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Duplex Mcenerney

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

P0214.

Stainless Steel World2001 KCI Publishing BV

3. Types of welds in finished Gibson Tube coils

Stainless Steel World2001 KCI Publishing BV

5. Quality assurance plan

4. Seam welded tubing

Stainless Steel World2001 KCI Publishing BV

6. Dimensional and surface roughness characterization

Stainless Steel World2001 KCI Publishing BV

Stainless Steel World2001 KCI Publishing BV

Stainless Steel World2001 KCI Publishing BV

Stainless Steel World2001 KCI Publishing BV

Stainless Steel World2001 KCI Publishing BV

Stainless Steel World2001 KCI Publishing BV

Stainless Steel World2001 KCI Publishing BV

Stainless Steel World2001 KCI Publishing BV

Stainless Steel World2001 KCI Publishing BV

Stainless Steel World2001 KCI Publishing BV

290 Base Metal HAZ LSW 280 HAZ Base Metal

270 Hardness (HV 0.5)

290 Base Metal HAZ SSW 280 HAZ Base Metal

270 Hardness (HV 0.5)

200 -0,3 -0,2 -0,1 0 0,1 0,2 0,3

Position Relative to Weld Centerline (in)

Stainless Steel World2001 KCI Publishing BV

290 Base Metal HAZ OW 280 HAZ Base Metal

270 Hardness (HV 0.5)

200 -0,3 -0,2 -0,1 0 0,1 0,2 0,3

Position Relative to Weld Centerline (in)

Stainless Steel World2001 KCI Publishing BV

Stainless Steel World2001 KCI Publishing BV

Chemical Composition of Alloy 19D Strip

Stainless Steel World2001 KCI Publishing BV

Stainless Steel World2001 KCI Publishing BV

Stainless Steel World2001 KCI Publishing BV

Stainless Steel World2001 KCI Publishing BV

0.626 0.626 0.625 0.626 0.625

0.626 0.625 0.625 0.625 0.625

Avg. Notes a. To convert from inches to mm, multiply by 25.4. Table 7:

Stainless Steel World2001 KCI Publishing BV

Stainless Steel World2001 KCI Publishing BV

Stainless Steel World2001 KCI Publishing BV

Stainless Steel World2001 KCI Publishing BV

304 / 304L 7.94 0.500 16.3 16.6 193

316 / 316L 8.03 0.450 16.2 16.5 200

19D 7.77 0.471 15.9 14.4 208b

2205 7.85 0.470 14.0 13.7 200

2507 7.80 0.470 14.0 13.5 200

Stainless Steel World2001 KCI Publishing BV

P0214.doc Heat / Statistical Quantity Requirements

Stainless Steel World2001 KCI Publishing BV

P0214.doc Heat / Statistical Quantity Requirements

Stainless Steel World2001 KCI Publishing BV

98,400 96,800 89,900 89,400 75,900 76,900

9.2 25.2 19.9 16.9 12.2 12.6

UTSa (psi) 100,000 min. 116,033 122,400 125,905 125,300 125,300

YSa (psi) 80,000 min. 81,800 82,800 83,773 82,700 81,600

E (%) 25 min. 43.6 41.1 40.2 41.5 40.8

E (%) 25 min. 41.1 38.9

Stainless Steel World2001 KCI Publishing BV

Test Locationa BM LSW BM LSW SSW SSW OW OW

Stainless Steel World2001 KCI Publishing BV

Stainless Steel World2001 KCI Publishing BV

Test Locationa BM BM BM BM BM BM BM BM HAZ OW OW OW OW OW OW OW OW HAZ BM BM BM BM BM BM BM BM