0
Research Papers: Materials and Fabrication

Cross-Weld Creep Comparison of Power Plant Steels CrMoV, P91 and P92

[+] Author and Article Information
David W. J. Tanner

e-mail: david.tanner@nottingham.ac.uk

Wei Sun

e-mail: w.sun@nottingham.ac.uk

Thomas H. Hyde

e-mail: thomas.hyde@nottingham.ac.uk
Materials, Mechanics & Structures
Research Division,
Faculty of Engineering,
The University of Nottingham,
Nottingham NG7 2RD, UK

Contributed by the Pressure Vessel and Piping Division of ASME for publication in the Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology. Manuscript received August 16, 2012; final manuscript received January 8, 2013; published online March 18, 2013. Assoc. Editor: David L. Rudland.

J. Pressure Vessel Technol 135(2), 021408 (Mar 18, 2013) (5 pages) Paper No: PVT-12-1131; doi: 10.1115/1.4023430 History: Received August 16, 2012; Revised January 08, 2013

Results obtained from high temperature creep tests of ferritic steel CrMoV, P91 and P92 cross-weld specimens are compared. Data are presented normalized with the results of the corresponding parent metals in order to compare the materials tested at different temperatures and stresses, and to identify characteristic cross-weld material trends. All cross-weld failures occurred in the heat-affected zone (HAZ) adjacent to the parent metal, known as type IV, at earlier test durations than for the parent material specimens. The relative performance of the cross-welds was found to decrease with decreasing stress. The CrMoV cross-weld specimens showed by far the lowest weld strength reduction factors and greatest notch strengthening, determined by testing uniaxially loaded bars with semicircular circumferential notches located in the heat-affected zone. The P91 and P92 cross-weld specimens were found to have similar (high) weld strength reduction factors and showed little or no notch strengthening. The failure time of a P92 cross-weld specimen relative to the P92 parent material could be estimated using data from P91 cross-weld and relative parent material tests.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2013 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Dimensions of the creep specimens (mm)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Orientation of the C-W creep specimens

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Macro sections of typical failed C-W creep specimens: (a) waisted, showing HAZ failure near the parent material, and (b) notched, showing HAZ failure at the minimum notch section

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Photomacrograph of both halves of a typical failed C-W waisted creep specimen

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

CrMoV stress-rupture times at 640  °C

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

P91 stress-rupture times at 625 °C

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

P92 stress-rupture times at 675  °C

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Comparison of C-Ws relative to PMs

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

P91(625 °C) and P92(675  °C) stress-rupture times

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

P91(625 °C) and P92(675  °C) C-W relative to PM

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In