Metallurgical test report on preliminary analysis done on UT indications

observed in 85mm thick rolled plate

Background: Unacceptable UT indications were observed near the back wall (~ 10 – 15 mm below
surface) in 85mm thick rolled plate of SS304L. Forged and machined slab did not have any UT
indications before rolling.

A corner sample was cut from the same for in-situ surface microstructural analysis of the region having
UT indications v/s relative normal (best) region in the sample.

Figure 1: Location of coupon drawn from rolled plate having worst UT indications.

3
1

Figure 2: Photograph of the coupon with location of indications hard punched for traceability.

Page 1 of 7
 ~10 mm above UT indication OK location in the same sample
(On top surface of plate) (on top surface of plate)

Magnification: 100 X Magnification: 100 X

Magnification: 200 X Magnification: 200 X

Figure 3: In-situ photo micrographs on surface of the plate above UT indications and in relatively OK
area. Etchant Used: Standard Aqua Regia.

Comments:

1. In both locations mix twinned austenitic grains were observed.

2. Surface microstructures of both locations are similar and no major difference observed
between the two.

Lab solution annealing trial was carried out on the coupon and Oscilloscope patters were
checked again in the same locations to find the effect of the trial on the UT indications.

Before lab solution annealing trial After lab solution annealing trial

Location 1 – Indication located at a depth of 71 mm

Page 2 of 7
 Location 2 – Indication located at a depth of 73 mm
Before lab solution annealing trial After lab solution annealing trial

Location 3 – Relatively OK area

Not Applicable as this portion was cut before

the lab solution annealing trial

Location 4 – Indication located at a depth of 73.11 mm

Figure 4: Oscilloscope pattern of location 1, 2 and 3

Comments:

1. No major change observed in the indication oscilloscope pattern after lab solution annealing
trial.
2. Drop seen in the height of indication 2 after lab trial may be ignored as lug welding was carried
near the same.

Macrostructure analysis was done in slice containing UT indication (4) below are the results of the
same.

Page 3 of 7
 Figure 5: Macro structure of sample (macro etched with standard glyceregia)

Comments:

1. Central zone of the sample was not etched even after prolonged exposure to glyceregia
reagent. (15ml HCL + 5 ml HNO3 + 10 mm Glycerol)
2. Pancake type elongated austenitic grains seen in the outer periphery of the sample with
sporadic large grains as seen in the figure above.

~20 mm

~30 mm

Figure 6: Same macro-etched with acetic glyceregia – giving better results.

Through thickness microstructure analysis was done in the UT indication region vicinity to find the
cleanliness levels at different depths and to study the features revealed in the macrostructure
examination of the region.

Page 4 of 7
Inclusion Rating: ASTM E 45 Method A

1) Top Surface

2) Mid-thickness (T/2)

3) Bottom surface

Comments: No major exogenous inclusions seen throughout the cross section. Also overall no major
steel cleanliness issue observed in the sample.

Page 5 of 7
Microstructural analysis:

Micro hardness Analysis:

Micro hardness: 172, 173 HV 50gF Micro Hardness: 171, 184 HV 50gF

Load: 50 gm

Page 6 of 7
Comments:
1) Mix austenitic grains observed through out out the thickness.
2) Pancake type austenitic grains & signs of abnormal grain growth (Secondary recrystallization) are
observed.
3) Microstructure near the bottom surface has more amount of elongated pancake type austenitic
grains, while in T/2 location less no. of such grains are observed.
4) Micro hardness analysis done in the sample showed that there is no appreciable hardness difference
between the bigger and smaller grains.
5) Sample was also tested with ferrite meter and no (delta) ferrite was found in the same.
6) Coupon has been drawn from extreme corner of the plate which generally gets cooled very fast.

Page 7 of 7