See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/291818792

Controlling heat treatment of welded P91

Article  in  Welding Journal · June 2006

CITATIONS READS
8 502

2 authors, including:

Patric de Smet
Siemens
2 PUBLICATIONS   10 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Patric de Smet on 26 August 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Controlling
Controlling Heat
Heat Treatment
Treatment
of
of Welded
Welded P91
P91
Hardness testing proves to be a powerful tool for checking the condition of P91
BY PATRIC DE SMET AND HANS VAN WORTEL
Modified 9Cr-1Mo, commonly re-
ferred to as P91, is widely used in the
power industry because of its superior
properties at elevated temperatures. P91
get its favorable strength and toughness
properties from its microstructure. The
desired microstructure can only be ob-
tained using material with a well-balanced
chemical analysis and proper heat treat-
ment. Heat treatment is an especially crit-
ical step during the manufacturing and
fabrication of P91.
P91 is a martensitic chromium-molyb-
denum steel, microalloyed with vanadium
and niobium, and with a controlled nitro-
gen content. In the as-welded condition,
P91’s microstructure consists of “fresh”
martensite. This untempered martensite
is hard and brittle. The toughness is low
and the material is prone to stress corro-
sion cracking. In addition, while the creep
properties of fresh martensite are un-
known, they can safely be assumed to be
unfavorable. Therefore, tempering of the
formed martensite in P91 after welding is
necessary to obtain the required service
properties. Proper heat treatment will re-
sult in tempered martensite with precipi-
tated carbides (M23C6) and vanadium/
niobium-rich carbo-nitrides. The hard-
ness of weld and base metal will be be-
tween 200 and 270 Vickers hardness num-
ber (VHN), and toughness will be suffi-
cient, i.e., higher than 27 J (20 ft-lb) at
20°C (68°F).
Hardness of P91
The heat from welding will affect the
base metal. The heat-affected zone
(HAZ) starts directly adjacent to the weld
metal at the weld interface. A coarse-
grained heat-affected zone (CGHAZ) in
the HAZ, and, farther away from the weld
PATRIC DE SMET (pdsmet@nem.nl) is welding and materials engineer for NEM b.v., The Netherlands, and HANS
(hans.vanwortel@tno.nl) is senior project manager at TNO Industrial Technology, The Netherlands.
42 JUNE 2006
interface, a fine-grained heat-affected
zone (FGHAZ) can be distinguished.
Figure 1 represents typical hardnesses
along a postweld heat-treated weld metal,
HAZ, and base metal of P91. Figure 1
shows that the highest hardness is found
in the CGHAZ, and the lowest hardness
in the FGHAZ. This FGHAZ is the area
with the weakest creep properties and the
location where the so-called Type IV
cracking occurs (Ref. 1).
Effects of Variation in Heat
Treatment Parameters
during PWHT
TNO Industrial Technology and NEM
performed many hardness tests on P91 in
different heat treatment conditions. Fig-
ure 2 illustrates the effects of various heat
treatments on weld metal (maximum)
hardness. The hardness is presented as a
function of the Larson Miller parameter
(LMP), which is used to characterize the
combination of heat treatment time and
temperature. The LMP is valid for the tem-
perature of stress relief heat treatment.
Postweld heat treatment with an LMP
between the two dotted vertical lines in
Fig. 2 leads to good material properties.
The window of required heat treatment is
represented by 750°C/2 h (i.e., LMP =
20.8) as the lower limit and 770°C/10 h
(LMP = 21.9) as the upper limit.
Hardness Test as a
Control of PWHT
From Fig. 2, it is clear that there is a
direct relation between the Larson Miller
parameter and weighted average weld
metal hardness; most of the hardness val-
ues are expected to be below the average
trend line. Further, this figure shows that
the base metal hardness does not vary
much with LMP.
Base metal hardness is found at a level
somewhat above 200 VHN. Only at very
high values for LMP can a drop in hard-
ness below, but still close to 200 VHN, be
found.
This close relation between hardness
and PWHT parameters (expressed as
LMP), for the weld metal, is very helpful
for checking the P91 condition after heat
treatment.
If a portable hardness test is used,
some care should be taken. Often the base
metal, weld metal, and HAZ are subjected
to hardness testing. However, consider-
ing the probe dimension, it is not easy to
test the narrow heat-affected zone. Even
if one could get some results out of the
HAZ, it is difficult to indicate if the val-
ues come from the FGHAZ or from the
CGHAZ. A relatively low value can be ac-
ceptable if it comes from the FGHAZ, but
unacceptable if it is found in the CGHAZ
— Fig. 1.
A fair approach is to test only the weld
and base metals. Both of these zones can
be easily distinguished. Further, Brühl et
al. (Ref. 1) found that the FGHAZ
hardness is approximately 20 VHN lower
than the base metal. Based on the col-
lected data, this “fixed” difference in
hardness between FGHAZ and base
metal is confirmed.
A relation between CGHAZ hardness
and weld or base metal hardness is less
pronounced, but it was found that the
CGHAZ is roughly up to 20 VHN higher
than the mean weld metal hardness.
Figure 2 can be used as a guide for in-
terpretation of the test results, keeping
the accuracy of portable hardness testing
in mind. When analyzing portable test re-
VAN WORTEL

Base Metal
Fig. 1 — Typical hardness across P91 weld metal, HAZ, and base
metal in PWHT condition.
Fig. 3 — Charpy-V impact toughness as function of Larson Miller pa-
rameter (LMP).
sults, keep in mind that the accuracy is
lower than that of laboratory test results.
The effect of inadequate handling of the
test equipment, poor surface preparation
at test location, or testing on a decarbur-
ized or heavily deformed surface layer can
also lead to inaccurate results.
Toughness
In Europe, a Charpy-V impact tough-
ness of 27 J (20 ft-lb) is generally consid-
ered as sufficiently ductile. Directive 97/23
of the European Parliament (Ref. 2), re-
ferred to as PED (pressure equipment di-
rective) adopted this 27 J at 20°C (or at
lowest operating temperature) as a safe
limit (Ref. 2). Some codes, however, re-
quire even higher values of 41 J (30 ft-lb)
(Refs. 3, 5).
Regarding toughness of a welded joint,
the weld metal is considered most critical.
Results of Charpy-V impact testing of
CGHAZ
FGHAZ
Fig. 2 — Trend of hardness as function of Larson Miller parameter
(LMP).
Fig.4 — Effect of PWHT above lower critical temperature A1.
weld metal with varying LMP for weld
metal of submerged arc welds (SAW) is
illustrated by Fig. 3.
For SAW, it was found that the tough-
ness in the as-welded condition is around
7 J. Only after a PWHT above LMP of
20.8 can a toughness higher than 27 J be
guaranteed. This is in line with the values
of filler metal suppliers. Most of the sup-
pliers of P91 filler metals give data for
weld metal with a heat treatment around
760°C (1400°F)/2 h (LMP = 21).
Finally, it is interesting to note that
NEM and TNO found that in the PWHT
condition weld metals with acceptable
toughness showed hardnesses lower than
300 VHN.
Intercritical PWHT
In some unfortunate cases, compo-
nents may be postweld heat-treated out
of the required range. Postweld heat treat-
ment at a too low LMP will result in a too
high weld metal hardness, and can easily
be found from hardness test results. Heat
treatment beyond 770°C/10 h (i.e., too
high LMP) results in low hardness. As
long as the heat treatment temperature is
below the lower critical temperature A11,
the hardness will stay around 200 VHN,
even at a very long PWHT duration.
Heat treatment above the lower criti-
cal temperature A 1 will ruin the mater-
ial’s properties (Ref. 4). Heat treatment
above A1 results in (partial) transforma-
tion of martensite into austenite.
The formed austenite will be trans-
formed into fresh, hard martensite at
rather rapid cooling rates and into soft
ferrite at slow cooling rates. Both situa-
1. A1 is the lower transformation tempera-
ture. On heating, ferrite is partly trans-
formed into austenite (a Æ a +g).
WELDING JOURNAL 43
tions are unwanted, but formation of fer-
rite is considered to be the worst situation
because creep strength drops to that for
grade P22.
The lower critical temperature, A1, is
a function of nickel (Ni) and manganese
(Mn) (Ref. 6). For P91 base metal, A1 is
found at around 800°–830°C. Weld metal
contains higher percentage Ni and Mn
and, therefore, has a lower A1. The lower
critical transformation temperature can
be estimated using the ORNL data-based
relation A 1 = 848–42(Ni[%]+Mn[%])
[°C]. For Ni+Mn of 1.5%, the A1 is found
at around 785°C (1445°F), which is close
to the upper limit of PWHT.
Because of the poor properties of heat
treatment in the intercritical area (above
A1, below A3 [for A3 refer to footnote 2]),
it is very important to prevent such a
PWHT.
Depending on heat treatment temper-
ature and cooling rate, basically four ex-
treme situations are possible.
A. Heat treatment above weld and base
metal A1, followed by rapid cooling
B. Heat treatment above weld and base
metal A1, followed by slow cooling
C. Heat treatment above weld, but
below base metal A 1, followed by rapid
cooling
Circle No. 5 on Reader Info-Card
44 JUNE 2006
View publication stats
D. Heat treat-
ment above weld,
but below base
metal A1 , followed
by slow cooling.
Rapid cooling
refers to a speed
just high enough to
prevent ferrite for-
mation out of
austenite.
Figure 4 illus-
trates situation A,
PWHT above weld
and base metal A1,
followed by rapid
cooling. Because of
formation of fresh
martensite upon Fig. 5 — Effect of PWHT above weld metal, but below base metal A1,
cooling, a higher followed by rapid cooling.
hardness is found
for the base and
weld metals, as well.
Figure 4 also il-
lustrates situation B, i.e., PWHT above As has been shown, the base metal hard-
weld and base metal A1, but followed by ness is not expected to change during
slow cooling. Formed austenite is now manufacturing.
transformed into soft ferrite, resulting in Further, it is clear that in order to ob-
low hardness for weld and base metal. tain good service properties and tough-
Experiments also showed that in the ness, the window for PWHT is relatively
case where the weld metal is heat-treated narrow. A good practice is to perform a
above A 1 but the base metal is below it furnace survey to ensure PWHT within
(situation D), low hardness values are the required temperature window.
found in the range indicated in Fig. 4. Al- Finally, it is emphasized that not only
though no ferrite is formed in the base heat treatment temperature, but both
metal, the hardness drops due to a soft an- PWHT time and temperature (LMP) de-
nealing effect, i.e., coarsening of carbides. termine the effect of the PWHT cycle.
Figure 5 represents situation C, i.e., for Postweld heat treatment within the
PWHT above weld metal but below base temperature range of 750° to 770°C (1380°
metal A1, followed by rapid cooling. The to 1420°F) and an LMP of around 21 will
weld metal now contains some fresh lead to good high-temperature properties
martensite besides the tempered marten- and toughness for a safe hydrostatic test
site. The base metal is softened due to and to put the installation into service. ◆
coarsening of carbides. This situation may
be somewhat difficult to detect by hard-
ness testing, since the hardness values are References
comparable to the acceptable range for
weld metal and just below the required 1. Brühl, F., et al. 1990. Behavior of the
base metal hardness. Knowing the initial 9% chromium steel P91 and its weldments
base metal hardness before PWHT will in short and long term tests. Proceedings
help to distinguish this situation. of the ASME/IEEE Power Generation Con-
ference. Boston, Mass. pp. 1–10.
2. Directive 97/23/EC of the European
Final Materials Condition Parliament and of the council. May 29,
Hardness is directly related to PWHT 1997, p. 23.
time and temperature characterized as 3. VdTÜV 511-2, p. 2.
LMP. This makes hardness testing a pow- 4. Henry, J. F. 2005. Growing experi-
erful tool for checking the material’s con- ence with P91/T91 forcing essential code
dition. Testing only at the end of the line changes. Combined Cycle Journal,
— after final PWHT — is a good prac- 1Q/2005.
tice. However, it is better to start with a 5. Dutch Rules for Pressure Vessels,
hardness test on incoming material. This Sheet M0110, p. 7.
helps to interpret the results after PWHT. 6. Newel, W. 2002. Guideline for weld-
ing P(T)91 materials, EPRI, June, p. 9.
2. A3 is the upper transformation tempera-
ture. On heating, ferrite is transformed into
austenite (a+g Æ g ).