EFFECT OF HEAT INPUT & TEMPERING PARAMETER ON NOTCH-TOUGHNESS

PROPERTY OF Cr-Mo-V WELDMENTS

Darshan Gambhava a, Allwyn Lewis a, Ritesh Patel a, Manas Ghosh a, M N Patel b

a
Larsen & Toubro Ltd, Heavy Engineering Division, Hazira-394510, Surat, Gujarat, India
dag@hzw.ltindia.com, ajl@hzw.ltindia.com, rnpa@hzw.ltindia.com, mkg@hzw.ltindia.com
b
Metallurgical & Materials Engg. Department- MSU - 390002, Baroda, Gujarat, India
mnp_31554@yahoo.co.in

Abstract

2.25Cr-1Mo-0.25V steels have gained popularity over conventional Cr-Mo steels in the last two decades
due to its superior high temperature properties in terms of creep & hydrogen attack. However the
addition of vanadium makes the material more critical in terms of weldability & heat treatment. This
leads to increased emphasis on choosing appropriate welding parameters as well as stress relieving heat
treatment. This paper aims to explain the effect of tempering behavior on notch toughness property of
welds, welded with varying heat inputs during post weld heat treatment (PWHT).

For 2.25Cr-1Mo-0.25V steel, ASME sec VIII Div 1 & 2 states the minimum PWHT temperature as
677°C. These welds are normally stress relieved at targeted temperature of 705°C and soaking/ holding
time is 8 - 10 h irrespective of the thickness. Even though construction code allows lower temperature
and lower time for PWHT, the increased soaking time and temperature is required to sufficiently temper
the weld of high hardness. This has been derived on basis of experiences of consumable suppliers and
fabricators.

In this work, 2.25Cr-1Mo-0.25V plates were welded with two different heat inputs and subjected to
different PWHT conditions. Narrow Gap Submerged Arc Welding (NG SAW) was used with 2 pass per
layer technique. These welds were subjected to mechanical tests like impact and hardness tests as well as
microstructural analysis.

Impact toughness results as well as hardness data was plotted as function of Larson-Miller parameter to
evaluate the effect of tempering during PWHT. Fractography by SEM and Optical microstructure
comparison was also carried out on the broken impact specimen. Result shows that notch toughness of
the weld increases with increase in Larson-Miller parameter (LMP) (i.e. increase in both PWHT duration
and time). Hardness shows a marginal decrease with increase in Larson-Miller parameter.

Key Words: 2.25Cr-1Mo-0.25V steels, Cr-Mo, Larson-Miller Parameter, Narrow Groove, post weld heat
treatment, SAW process, Fractography

Introduction

2.25Cr-1Mo-0.25V steel or modified 2.25Cr-1Mo steel has crucial role in processes in refineries and
petrochemical plant such as desulphurization of hydrocarbons and cracking of heavier hydrocarbon
fractions in to lighter molecules. These processes are carried out at high temperature and pressure in
presence of catalyst. However all the benefits of the steel are exploited only if the properties of the
weldments match with the properties of the conventional steel. Welding of this steel requires precaution
and careful processing owing to its higher hardenability & severe service conditions. Welds are always
post weld heat treated before service due to its higher hardness & low as welded toughness .[1]

2.25Cr-1Mo-0.25V steel welds are very sensitive to wire-flux combinations. Fabricator need to be
vigilant and cognizant of any changes or improvements made in wire-flux combination and require
requalification when any changes in wire flux combination.[2] In this study 2.25Cr-1Mo-0.25V steel
plates were welded using the same wire-flux combination with two different heat input and subjected to

1
different PWHT conditions ranging from 695-705 X 6 h to 705-715 X 10 h. NG SAW welding was done
with two pass per layer technique to get maximum tempered zone in the weld.

Chemical analysis of the weld & the base metal was done & ’X’ factor & ’J’ factor calculated.
Mechanical testing was carried out on the welded samples to establish the corelation between Notch
toughness property & hardness with tempering parameter(LMP).

Experimental

Base metal and welding procedure

The studies were performed on submerged arc welds deposited on 144mm thick 2.25Cr-1Mo-0.25V steel
plate. The composition of the weld is listed in Table 1 & “J” Factor in equation (1). J factor relates
temper embrittlement susceptibility of the base material. It should be less than 100. Two pass per layer
welding technique is used for welding of the narrow gap butt joint. Schematic diagram of bead placement
for two pass per layer technique is shown in Fig 1. In general joint configuration for 144 mm thick welds
are double “J” type having J-radius of 12mm and included angle of 1 deg. For experiments joint
configuration has been modified to the J-radius of 10mm and included angle 1 deg. Joint configuration is
shown in the figure 2. This modification has been done to accommodate the two pass per layer technique
with less chances of defects.

Table 1: Chemical composition of base metal in wt%

Elements C S Mn P Si Cu Mo Ni Cr V Ti As Sb Sn
Wt % 0.14 0.001 0.53 0.004 0.049 0.12 1.00 0.12 2.23 0.3 0.001 0.003 0.002 0.0017

J factor = (P + Sn) (Mn + Si) x 104 (1)

Figure 1: Schematic diagram of bead Figure 2: Weld joint configuration of

placement in two pass per layer welding modified ‘J’ groove

Welding with two different heat input was carried out on plates. These heat inputs are designated as
HITP I and HITP II. Values of these heat inputs are shown in Table 2. Consumable used for SAW is EG
filler wire + flux with AC polarity of the welding. Parameters of SAW are listed in Table 2. Chemical
composition of wire flux combination is shown in the Table 3. X- factor is calculated to check weld
metal susceptibility towards temper embrittlement

X factor = (10P + 5Sb + 4Sn + As)/100. [4] (2)

2
Table 2: Weld metal Chemical Composition

Elements C S Mn P Si Cu Mo Ni Cr V Ti As Sb Sn
Wt % 0.072 0.003 1.37 0.005 0.081 0.57 1.01 0.33 2.24 0.25 0.001 0.002 0.002 0.0023

Table 3: Welding condition and Heat input

HITP I HITP II
Base material 2.25Cr –1Mo –0.25V 2.25Cr –1Mo –0.25V
Consumables EG Filler wire + flux EG Filler wire + flux
Process SAW SAW
Position 1G 1G
Polarity AC AC
Heat input (kJ/mm) 1.81 2.04

To find out the effect of notch toughness on tempering parameter, plate welded by both heat input were
subjected to different tempering parameter. We have used Larson-Miller parameter as tempering
parameter. Larson-Miller parameter can be calculated by equation (3) [5][6]

LMP = T X (20 + log t) (3)

Where T = PWHT temperature in oK
t = PWHT time in Hr.

Different Larson-Miller parameter and corresponding PWHT condition are shown in the Table 4

Table 4: Larson-Miller parameter and corresponding Heat Treatment condition

Temperature oC Time (Hour) Tempering Parameter

HT A 695-705 6 20217
HT B 695-705 8 20338
HT C 695-705 10 20433
HT D 705-715 8 20548
HT E 705-715 10 20643

Testing

In Non-destructive examination, Radiography & Ultrasonic Testing was carried out on welded plate as
per ASME Section V & ASME Section VIII Edition 2004 Addenda 2006.

Chemical testing of base and weld metal was done to find out the chemical composition of the base metal
and weld & to calculate the J factor for base metal and X- factor for the weld metal.

Charpy V – Notch testing was carried out for the specimen taken from Weld and heat affected zone
(HAZ) of HITP I and HITP II in as welded condition and in varying Larson-Miler parameter condition.
Samples were taken out from the 1.5mm from the surface and at the half of the thickness (T/2) of the
weld of each heat input. Total 9 samples were taken from each location. Testing was carried out at -30oC.
Acceptance value for the testing is 48 J (Avg.) and 54 J (Min) in a set of 3 specimens. [3] To study the
effect of LMP on notch toughness, Impact vs LMP graph has been plotted for both heat inputs.

Hardness testing was carried out as per ASTM E 92 by Vickers hardness tester with 10 kg load. At each
condition of the heat input and LMP, Six values of hardness was taken on three zone of the weldment
that is weld, HAZ and base metal. To study the effect of LMP, Hardness vs LMP graph has been
prepared.

3
Ultrasonic & Radiographic testing was carried out to confirm the absence of any discontinuity, defect or
crack in the weld as per acceptance standards of ASME Sec VIII Div 2. The microstructures were
characterized by using optical and scanning electron microscope. Grain size measurement was also done
to find out the difference with respect to different heat input

Results

RT and UT examination reveled absence of any porosity, lack of fusion, lack of penetration or cracks in
the weldment.

Results of chemical testing of base metal and weld metal are shown in the Table 1 and Table 2. The J
factor for base metal is 33 as per Watanabe formula, which is quite low for base metal. X- Factor for
weld metal as per Bruscato formula is 7.12 ppm which is also quite low for good weld metal properties

The average value of notch toughness of all nine samples is shown in Table 5. This table shows impact
values of both heat input at each LMP. The average value of hardness is shown in the Table 6. These
values are in HV 10 for both heat input at each LMP.

Table 5: Impact toughness of HITP I and HITP II

IMPACT TEST RESULTS AT -30 °C IN J

HITP1 (1.81KJ/mm) HITP2 (2.04KJ/mm)
HEAT
TREATMENT 1.5 from top T/2 1.5 from top T/2
WM HAZ WM HAZ WM HAZ WM HAZ
As Welded 8 49 8 160 7 25 6 196
695-705°C for 6 h
123 180 166 200 128 196 164 220
(LMP 20217)
695-705°C for 8 h
142 283 201 302 131 243 162 309
(LMP 20338)
695-705°C for 10 h
165 252 193 299 167 220 202 267
(LMP 20433)
705-715°Cfor 8 h
189 273 239 296 209 282 225 331
(LMP 20548)
705-715°C for 10 h
186 290 215 267 181 271 227 308
(LMP 20643)

Table 6 : Hardness of HITP I and HITP II

HARDNESS (Hv10)
HITP I HITP II
HEAT
TREATMENT WM HAZ BM WM HAZ BM

As Welded 323 325 229 320 331 220

695-705°C for 6 h
227 248 222 229 243 221
(LMP 20217)
695-705°C for 8 h
211 216 213 213 223 216
(LMP 20338)
695-705°C for 10 h
204 220 205 205 218 204
(LMP 20433)
705-715°C for 8 h
211 221 210 205 228 196
(LMP 20548)
705-715°C for 10 h
207 212 210 213 216 210
(LMP 20643)

4
Macro of the welded sample reveals two pass per layer with very thin HAZ. The height of bead is around
2.5mm so that previous pass can be sufficiently tempered. Proper tempering of each & every bead leads
to improved impact toughness values

 

2nd pass 1st pass

Figure 3: Weld joint configuration of modified ‘J’ groove
Optical and scanning electron micro photograph of as welded and heat treated condition is shown in the
Fig. 4 and Fig 5. Microstructure in the as welded condition reveals bainite-martensite structure where as
after PWHT tempered bainitic-martensitic structure is obtained with some amount of ferrite.

400X 1000X
X

Figure 4: Optical and SEM image of “ As Welded” condition

5
 400X 1000X

Figure 5: Optical and SEM image of after PWHT condition

Grain size measurement of the weld was also done for the both heat input. For HITP I (lower heat input)
ASTM grain size no is 7-9 where as for HITP II (higher heat input) ASTM grain size no. 5-6. (Fig 6 &
Fig 7)

400X 400X
Figure 6: ASTM Grain size No. 7-9 Figure 7: ASTM Grain size No. 5-6
observed for HITP 1(1.81kJ/mm) observed for HITP 2(2.04kJ/mm)

In fractographic study, the surface of the broken sample was analyzed for the type of fracture. Samples
with the lowest & highest impact toughness value were selected for fractography.

Figure 8: Broken Impact sample at 5X Figure 9: SEM Image of broken impact

(Impact Value: 10J) sample at 500X. (Impact Value: 10J)


6
 Figure 10: Broken impact sample (5X) Figure 11: SEM Image of broken impact
(Impact Value: 181J) sample at 500X. (Impact Value: 181J)

Discussion
Table 5 shows very low values of impact toughness (<10J) in weld at 1.5 mm & T/2 from top. This is
attributed to the un-tempered bainite and martensite in the as welded condition (Figure 4). Also, no
significant difference is observed for HITP I & HITP II, as the samples are tested without being subjected
to any heat treatment

Figure 12 reveals similar trend in the impact toughness values in the weld at the two locations, T/2
always exceeding 1.5mm. Also there is very marginal change in the impact values for the two heat
inputs. The values are almost similar with HITP I showing slightly higher values as compared to HITP II
with a few exceptions.

Figure 12: Comparison of Impact toughness at different tempering parameter of HITP I and HITP II

Fig.12 shows the comparison of the impact toughness values for different Larson-Miller parameter. The
Fig.12 clearly reveals that the impact toughness values increases with increasing LMP. An increase of
impact toughness values in the order of 25-30 J is observed for an increase in LMP of approx. 100 unit.
Increasing the LMP from 20548 to 20643 shows a very slight or negligible decrease in the impact
toughness values for both the heat inputs as well as for both the locations.

7
 Figure 13: Comparison of Hardness at different tempering parameter of HITP I and HITP II

Fig. 13 shows the comparison of hardness values for different LMP. It can be seen from the figure clearly
that there is a drastic drop in the hardness values in weld & HAZ after PWHT when compared to as
welded condition. Very high hardness in the range of 325 Hv10 is observed in the as welded condition in
weld & HAZ which drops down to less than 235 Hv10 for LMP greater than 20338. LMP in excess of
20338 almost stabilizes the hardness value around 215 Hv10 in weld & 220 Hv10 in HAZ.

One most revealing fact out of this figure is the unacceptable hardness value (>235 Hv10) in HAZ for
both HITP 1 & HITP 2 at LMP of 20217 i.e. PWHT at 695-705°C for 6 h. This shows that even after
meeting the minimum required value of impact toughness with LMP of 20217, the HAZ is not capable of
meeting the required hardness values.

“ X” -Factor for this weld was found to be 7.12 ppm. This was mainly attributed to the very low
Phosphorus content in the weld.

The weld macrographs clearly reveals the placement of two passes per layer. The height of each layer is
found to be less than 2.5 mm. This technique of welding provides both uniformity of the refinement
across the weld as well as higher extent of grain refinement compared to 3 pass/layer technique

Microstructure in the as welded condition reveals bainite-martensitic structure. SEM images reveals prior
austenite grain boundaries with precipitation of complex carbides of vanadium, molybdenum & iron.
Microstructure of the Post Weld Heat Treated welds in general appears to be Tempered bainitic-
martensitic structure with some amount of ferrite. SEM images shows the fine distribution of complex
carbides. It also reveals some decomposition of Bainite after PWHT.

Grain size measurement was done for HITP 1(1.81 kJ/mm) & HITP 2 (2.04 kJ/mm) at the center of the
weld. Observed ASTM grain size No. is 7-9 for 1.81 kJ/mm and 5-6 for 2.04 kJ/mm. This clearly reveals
that an increase in the heat input causes the grains to get coarse during welding, thereby resulting in
lower ASTM grain size number.

SEM image for fractured samples of minimum impact value shows cleavage fracture, characterizing it as
brittle fracture. Maximum impact value sample reveals cleavages with dimples indicating mix mode of
failure i:e brittle and ductile fracture.

Conclusion

Changing the heat input from 1.81 to 2.04 kJ/mm does not significantly affect the impact toughness
property. However, it influences the grain size & produces a fine grain structure in the lower heat input
sample. ASTM Grain size No. for 1.81 kJ/mm heat input is 7-9 whereas for 2.04 kJ/mm is 5-6.

8
Impact toughness values observed at T/2 are substantially higher than that observed at 1.5mm from top
for both the heat inputs due to insufficient tempering of the top layer as compared to mid thickness.

Impact toughness values increases with increasing LMP. An increase of impact toughness values in the
order of 25-30 J is observed for an increase in LMP of approx. 100 units. Increasing the LMP from
20548 to 20643 shows a very slight or negligible decrease in the impact toughness values for both the
heat inputs as well as for both the locations.

Impact toughness requirements have been met for LMP of 20217 (695-705°C for 6 h), however, HAZ
hardness is beyond the acceptable limit of 235 Hv10. Therefore, LMP of 20338 (695-705°C for 8 h) is
essentially required to meet overall impact-hardness requirements.

Microstructure in the ‘As welded’ condition reveals bainite-martensitic structure, where as after PWHT
microstructure in general appears to be Tempered bainitic/ martensitic structure with some amount of
ferrite which is responsible for the increase in notch toughness after PWHT.

References:

1. Joanna Hucinska, Advanced vanadium modified steels for high pressure hydrogen reactors, 1999
2. American petroleum institute (API), Fabrication Consideration for Vanadium Modified Cr- Mo Steel
Heavy Wall Pressure Vessels. Technical report 934-B First Edition
3. Boiler and pressure vessel code ASME Section VIII Division 1 (UG 84)
4. Dr Siegfired Dittrich, Thyssen Draht AG, Hamm, 2.25Cr-1Mo Filler Wire Metal With High Toughness
Properties For The Construction Of Hydrocrackers
5. Welding Research Council (WRC) - 275 , Publication - 1971
6. API recommended Practice, Materials and Fabrication of 2.25Cr-1Mo, 2.25Cr-1Mo-0.25V, 3Cr-1Mo, and
3Cr-1Mo-0.25V Steel Heavy Wall Pressure Vessels for High-temperature, High-pressure Hydrogen
Service, Downstream Segment, 934-A second edition, May 2008
7. Dr.I.Detemple, Dr.F.Hanus, Dr.G Luxenburger, R.J. Cawelius, Dillinger Hüttenwerke, New Generation of
Cr-Mo-V steel Grades for the use in Petrochemical Reactors
.