You are on page 1of 17

I have conducted hardness testing on etched samples as stated in the NACE MR0175 traverse for shop testing to test

the Metal, HAZ, and weld. Is there a way to test in the field on production weld to verify that the weld is not too hard or to excuse certain construction from Post weld heat treatment. 1. how is the test done is it is possible 2. can it be used to test HAZ also, I assume the weld (cap) and base metal will not be a problem 3. If this test (if possible) is done, how dependent is the hardness number derived this way... 4. how easy/difficult is it to conduct Thanks for your help.
As much as possible, do it right the first time...

SnTMan (Mechanical) metengr (Materials)

11 Jan 12 18:22 11 Jan 12 19:20

You can test production welds using a portable hardness tester - Equotip or Microdur, see below Without knowing your capabilities and equipment, the real fun begins; 1. You can test the weld cap and surrounding base material, away from the weld region. The HAZ will be a problem because of location in relation to surrounding base material. 2. You should have personnel qualified to use a portable hardness tester with a hardness testing procedure to assure consistency in the field. 3. Surface preparation will be critical for portable hardness testing. Your procedure should detail field metallographic grinding/polishing methods and a suitable chemical etchant to delineate the weld heat affected zone in the base material. 3. I would hire this service out in lieu of trying to so this in-house unless you have lots of production welds and it is worth a dedicated team of technicians to qualify and perform polishing, etching and hardness testing. Here is some background information that may help you; stanweld (Materials) 12 Jan 12 8:38

You can also test with tellebrineller or pin brineller. Hardness testing of the process side of the joint may prove impossible depending on accessibility. Accurate testing of the HAZ is not possible with these methods. Duwe6 (Industrial) 12 Jan 12 9:24 Even marginally accurate hardness readings are not possible on fieldwelds using Equotip or other rebound type hardness testers. You don't have to believe me, just try it on an actual weld coupon that can be put in a brinnell or rockwell hardness device. The spread in results is amazing and nauseating.

with that being said. metengr (Materials) 12 Jan 12 9:55 As a basic quality control check. a recent study by EPRI and past studies by ARAMCO and another independent lab confirmed the poor accuracy of the rebound test method in field testing of pipe and pipe welds.. we have had no problems with any welds. brimstoner (Materials) 16 Feb 12 . "test for hardness and if the material is soft enough. I'm asking because we are planning to say. engr2GW (Petroleum) 12 Jan 12 13:49 All the welding procedures in this welding are NACE qualified. the previously mentioned telebrineller or pin-brinnell device will give very accurate measurements.. And I agree no accuracy testing pipe. then forgo PWHT. if a FLAT area is ground or filed on the weld. but it actually works. you will need to hardness test qualify the welding procedure(s).. they hardness values for all of them passed. One of the greatest catastrophic events due to SCC occurred at the Unocal refinery out side Chicago. but if it's hard. As much as possible. engr2GW (Petroleum) Thanksa lot for your replies. stanweld (Materials) 12 Jan 12 9:44 Adding to Duwe6 comments. does it sound like the testing might be just as much work as the PWHT? to where we might just go ahear and PWHT and not worry about hardness testing.. process side of the weld joint. weld7777 (Industrial) 14 Feb 12 15:14 Gentlemen...On the other hand. do it right the first time. just PWHT" from what I'm hearing.. We qualify our procedures with and without PWHT to ASME. hardness testing of production welds can and is used with noted cautions regarding limitation of equipment AND expertise in using such equipment. which was readily accessible. THIS IS FOR SOUR AREAS ONLY thanks again. Hardness of the HAZ on the process side was considerably > than permitted by Unocal or by NACE recommendations at the time. We recently compared Equotip field results with bench test from coupons removed from the same tube locations tested with Equotip and the results from the Equotip were consistently lower (approximately 30 points BHN) than the laboratory bench test hardness results. 12 Jan 12 10:36 stanweld (Materials) 12 Jan 12 10:56 If you cannot tset the sour. As much as possible.. Hardness testing was done by the field contractor responsible for making the field alteration of the vessel but it was done on the OD meeting the Unocal requirements but not the process side. meaning. These are the only devices that have proven themselves to me to actually work on in-situ pipe welds. Yes. but we have stuck to the parameters of the procedure. do it right the first time. it'll have to be done by a third party... if we will do it. Yes it is OLD technology.

The involved vessel was altered by adding at least one shell course. stanweld (Materials) 16 Feb 12 17:35 The blast killed 17 and injured over 20 at the Lemont Refinery.. brimstoner (Materials) wtanweld. No task-specific procedure. circumferential weld addition which failed in the HAZ. and presumably a PE oversaw the task from his desk. Can you provide any references that discuss the Unocal failure? I regularly encounter cases of poorly trained NDE techs playing Russian Roulette with refinery vessels and exotic boiler alloys. The R-Stamp holder made the welds with the SAW process.16:02 Stanweld. I believe that more than 4/5 of field hardness testing is done wrong. Ever arm-wrestle with a shop foreman who thought your suggested sequence was irrelevant? Just one of a long list of reasons I no longer inhale fumes on a daily basis (and the callous on my forehead has nearly faded away). The deficiencies typically include any number of the following: No metallurgical training. No knowledge of applicable ASTM testing standard. The liner weld terminated adjacent to the shell course. My involvement was during the discovery phase at the initial law suits.. Inappropriate test method. No surface preparation. Permitting heat treaters to check their own work. 16 Feb 12 19:01 . I shall see what I can discover in the vast googleverse. The failure prompted examination of numerous vessels in similar service at other refineries. first (primarily) on the OD side and subsequently on the process side. Repeating tests until happy results are found. Even with the appropriate equipment. I earned less performing a related failure analysis than they got to generate a sheet with random numbers which naturally were lower than realistically possible . and a few more that don't come immediately to mind The most recent horror show was two techs getting double overtime to test the HAZ of fillet welds(!!) One was a level 2 visual inspector. I believe that this failure was the first failure attributed to SOHIC but don't quote me on that. A monel liner was attached as well by fillet welding to the carbon steel shell using the GMAW process. a number of refiner's found similarly cracked welds some nearly 1/2 wall. Hardness in the HAZ was > 260 BHN (determined during the failure analysis). No/wrong calibration.


. lol) to the high reading. max 350Hv. the average of the 3 readings is 314Hv. we just ran some production test plates as part of our current welding project. We are working to DNV C401.linkedin. or take another traverse above/below for comparison. Could be inadequate preheating. Our max allowable is 350Hv. metengr (Materials) What does DNV C401 require?????? deco0404 (Mechanical) Sorry.deco0404 (Mechanical) Guys. I have done hardness testing down the years. We have one reading (out of 45) which is 378Hv. Steve Jones Materials & Corrosion Engineer http://www. 8 Sep 11 5:22 On one of the samples the hardness results are a little high. Values are to be reported per individual indentation. (but not too close. nor ISO 6507-1. My query. Hardness tests can be affected by many factors.. and as it is quite a subjective 8 Sep 11 7:56 8 Sep 11 7:58 Metaljon (Materials) 8 Sep 11 22:48 Yes retest macro hardness required. indicate that average hardness is the criterion. two further complete macro-hardness tests would be required. the test has failed to meet the stipulated criteria. How such a failure can be redressed will be for agreement between the contracting parties. There were 3 readings taken in this particular location (weld HAZ).its possible you hit a patch of transformation product that is not representative of the remainder. SJones (Petroleum) 8 Sep 11 8:33 Neither DNV-OS-C401. Does my test plate pass the test or not? regards Declan Eddycurrentguy (Petroleum) 8 Sep 11 6:56 I would take additional readings close to. we have always worked on average readings. As per the applicable standard. What preheating temperature did you use? deco0404 (Mechanical) Preheating is only 50deg C Metaljon (Materials) What material plate grade are you using? 10 Sep 11 22:17 10 Sep 11 8:02 . If it were EEMUA 158 as the applicable specification. and not individual readings.

I assume you are using Vickers with a 10kg indentation load. These occasions are pretty rare in the last 2 decades. just that you find them on occasion. Duwe6 (Industrial) 11 Sep 11 3:52 12 Sep 11 13:22 "hard spots" in steel plate are not unknown.) QAFitz (Materials) 1 Oct 11 17:54 As noted in this thread. Viking5711 (Materials) 13 Feb 12 15:41 By the sounds of it you are using a Vickers hardness. "hard spots" in steel plate are not uncommon and. 378 over 350 is a significant miss. Maximum hardness often lies near the plate surface. as when I move over a little [5mm or less] the steel is 'normal'. My philosophy on HAZ testing is that you report the hardest result. brimstoner (Materials) 26 Sep 11 14:12 I'm not familiar with the material. where it matters most. even with today's Slab-Cast steel. I don't dabble in DNV C401 to know of what I speak except as I stated in this post. (I'm not suggesting you are in that group. but a limit of 350 HV in the HAZ tells me this steel is something more hardenable than garden variety structural.. in that case I would make sure the hardness values meet the requirements.5Mn. unless it is clearly an outlier. Hopefully you are not running into the dreaded and much-debated local brittle zones (LBZ). but they still [barely] exist. metallurgically ignorant lab techs (and some engineers) get weld hardness testing criminally wrong. from what I know about welding. . Therefore 50°C sounds like very inadequate preheat. 1.deco0404 (Mechanical) just a standard grade NV D36. If you are doing field hardness using a MIC 10 I would consider looking into ASTM A1038 at the proper calibration requirements for this equipment. wow. I don't know their origin. The ones I find are less than 10mm in diameter. throw in all of the variables in any heat affected zone.shipbuilding steel.15C. normalised and rolled. I have seen many sloppy. I suppose anybody could find whatever reading they desire. Using an incorrect calibration standard can drastically change the results .

Possibly due to improved electronics? By the way the rebound test was done with Equotip. I agree the UCI method (and TIV) are the only ones to use for HAZ. but I have witnessed plenty of techs report HAZ hardnesses on critical refinery equipment without bothering to actually locate the HAZ or even knowing how to do that. brimstoner (Materials) Thanks stanweld. Tests were performed on P91 materials and welds. I cleaned them up to 320 grit using my in situ metallography tools and then had them tested using HV10 and HRB/C. At the GE website. MIC-20. Do not use your brass blocks unless you need to recalibrate for testing materials with similar modulus to the brass test block.the MIC-10 plus a rebound tester. A third party Engineering study comparing MIC-10. including some exotic CSEF alloys. PIN Binell & Brinell indicated that the MIC-20 provided greater test accuracy than the MIC-10. The results were all over the map. The MIC-10 normally comes with a standard steel test block. Anyway my concern is more with obtaining reliable blocks (I am stuck with the MIC-10 tester). EdStainless (Materials) In the high B range you can get a lot of different material so watch carefully. I can post the results if you are interested. brimstoner (Materials) Any thoughts on using Brinell bars for this purpose? They are steel at least. Both used the same applied load for indentation. Both Mic-10 and MIC-20 use the UCI method. (I'd like to know in general how brass started to be used for calibration blocks. ==================== Plymouth Tube 6 Sep 11 15:48 stanweld (Materials) 6 Sep 11 16:22 The MIC-10 is precalibrated for maerials (steels) having a Young's Modulus of approximately 29. stanweld (Materials) 8 Sep 11 9:03 7 Sep 11 11:18 6 Sep 11 16:36 I'm not sure that why the differences between MIC-10 and MIC-20 occurred.recently ordered Rockwell B standards and (I should have known in advance) received brass. . Rebound hardness values were found to be highly inaccurate.000. although with a more elaborate computer attached.) I'd like to hear people's experiences and solutions to Microdur's requirement (in their operating manual) that calibration blocks be of 'similar material' to that being tested. I recently purchased a bunch of Brinell bars covering the range of 110 to 300 HRB. so how would MIC-20 be better? I would love to see that report if it is publicly available.000. Modulus and strain hardening rate can both impact the hardness readings that you get. the MIC-20 just seems like two testers in a package . to the point where I was even questioning whether they were even labelled correctly by the supplier. stanweld (Materials) 7 Sep 11 8:57 I've often used the Brinell bars to verify accuracy with the MIC-10 & MIC-20 hardness testers. which for the Microdur MIC-10 I use is out of the question. By 'similar material' do they merely mean similar elastic (Young's) modulus? I am looking at testing the entire range of Cr-Mo steels up to 10% Cr. Rebound hardness.

We have done extensive research on using this instrument and if you are going to use this equipment in the field then you will need to some validation work. . In the field. The MIC10 uses the Ultrasonic Contact Impedance method and does not use vickers hardness method.Metaljon (Materials) 10 Sep 11 4:43 The GE instruction manual supplied I think is very poorly written. Finally if your purpose is to measure HAZ hardness. then this is best measured using a line measurement technique where a series a readings and made across the HAZ. If you want good results then you need to polish to 1000 grit but replica quality one diamond finish is best. Consequently being an impedance measurement it is very sensitive to material type. The surface finish is also critical. Then etch the surface so that you can clearly see the weld and HAZ. If you want to get accurate data then you will have to make your own test blocks using the same material as being tested and then heat treat to different hardness conditions. if you don't have good hardness calibration blocks then use a Pin Brinell hardness tester as the means of cross validation. The UCI method should only be used within a defined hardness range based on your own calibration tests. 320 grit finish is not good enough.

I'm not sure if it would be around 1 millimeter or 1 inch or somewhere in between. This altered region is the HAZ and will be delineated by macroetching for hardness testing. I am looking for a real rough estimate here. "x" distance. that's about the distance I've seen. have you crossed sectioned and etched anything bigger or any heavywall? Could anyone give me an idea how wide the HAZ would be on bigger and heavier pipe? I am interested because my specs call for the HAZ to be hardness tested in some cases and I am not entirely sure as to how far out from the toe of the weld to catch the HAZ. In small welds that I've cross-sectioned and etched. you should have the completed weld region chemically macroetched to locate the heat affected zone. . however. weld deposit. Is this true? Thanks metengr (Materials) 24 Jun 10 22:19 Downhand. Ron. As well. Downhand (Industrial) Good info. A good chemical macroetch for locating the weld HAZ is an ammonium persulphate chemical etch. let's assume 1/8" 7018 was used to weld the joint at average heat. This is not as simple as measuring some distance from the edge or toe of the butt weld. The weld region in ferrous materials contains the following. 23 Jun 10 22:55 23 Jun 10 22:15 Best regards . fusion boundary (where the weld and base metal have mixed from melting) followed by the region along the base metal beyond the fusion zone where the original metal structure has been altered from exposure to heat from welding. Once this is completed. figure around 3/16" max as a safe assumption.Can anyone tell me approximately how wide the HAZ would be for a welded 6" STD wall butt weld? I realize it has alot to do with heat input. I have been told that this area is broken down into more than just the HAZ. Thanks metengr (Materials) For the HAZ width. when cross sectioning and etching is the entire area that appears the HAZ. you know precisely the width of the HAZ. and can conduct hardness testing with some assurance. gtaw (Structural) 3/16 inch sounds like a fair estimate.Al Ron (Structural) 24 Jun 10 13:29 24 Jun 10 21:05 Agree. If you need to conduct field or lab hardness testing of the base metal HAZ.

A quick and dirty etchant is hot muriatic acid.even in larger welds..http://www..welding-technology-machines. the HAZ doesn't get tremendously larger in steels. 25 Jun 10 7:42 .info/inspection-and-testing-of-welds/etchtest.htm Ron (Structural) downhand.

As with all hardness testers the MIC10 requires a very good surface finish. If the boiler tube lengths are long sometimes we clamp the tubes to increase rigidity. For pipes. vessels and headers we use the latest Equotip 3 instrument. My opinion is that in-situ hardness testing of boiler tubing is unreliable. What schemes are there for stiffening up thin-wall and/or small-diameter piping/tubing for Microdur testing? What are you using for calibration blocks? Anyone have experience with the optical through-indenter-viewing (TIV) method? It sounds very looking for people's experiences with field hardness testing on boiler materials. This gives excellent results provided that the instrument is set up and calibrated properly. I have seen some contractors using rough finish and the results are poor. I have very mixed feelings regarding the use of any of the current portable hardness testers for field application. Excellent software output for Equotip 3 and makes the reporting a breeze. Metaljon (Materials) 7 Sep 11 20:02 We use the MIC10 hardness tester. In particular I am thinking about the Microdur MIC-10 tester. The GE software for this instrument is poor and we have developed are own macros for this work. The optical method TIV is not suitable for site work in my opinion but ok for laboratory work. It is important with this type of hardness tester to use hardness blocks for calibration of the instrument. P91 and 316 hardness standards which we test and certify ourselves. Pipe and plate end products are a different matter regarding portable hardness testing. including tubes and including HAZs. whose accuracy is adversely affected by workpiece vibration effects. Sometime for petrochemical work we measure HAZ but I always qualify the reliability as being low. We also age the calibration blocks so that we validate the readings over a reasonable hardness range from virgin to degraded. As you point our the MIC10 instrument is prone to external vibration and has limitation on thickness. but why would the TIV not be suitable. It allows the calibration curve for a material to be programmed into the instrument which gives very consistent results +/-2%. at best. calibration and training are key elements to get good results with this instrument. The HAZ is composed of a range of microstructures and this will cause variation in hardness. we test the calibration of the instrument at least daily. metengr (Materials) 7 Sep 11 20:35 Regarding boiler tubes or heat exchanger tubes. We try if possible to use a similar material for the blocks and we have prepared are own standards (none commercially available for the range of materials we require). We don't routinely record HAZ as it is a very unreliable test. brimstoner (Materials) Metaljon. as mentioned above. Preparation. We normally measure weld and parent metal hardness. P22. Thanks. We have carbon steel. provided workpiece access is good? Metaljon (Materials) 10 Sep 11 4:00 9 Sep 11 13:34 . During site jobs.

! SO try POLDI . I'm hoping they send out copies of the first day presentations.. They had compared the readings from the various methods and common equipment. casting and forgings it lists the technique as being "partly" applicable... If these are not well controlled. UCI method also gives scatter but is less sensitive that TIV..! brimstoner (Materials) Metaljon.. 15 Sep 11 15:38 15 Sep 11 14:24 ..! All electronic hardness tester whether MIC 10...... TIV is similar to a micro-hardness tester.. Needless to say.We have tested the TIV and in my opinion it is not practical for onsite measurement of hardness.. which were available to the public. How do you do it and ensure consistency? Are they available ready-made? I am still a little puzzled by MIC-10's insistence on 'similar material' for the blocks . If you review the GE documentation you will see the bounds of applicability for TIV. As the indents are small the technique is highly surface sensitive and any abnormality in surface finish will affect the results... I anticipate working on the Cr-Mo alloys in addition to carbon steel (with the MIC-10).... low alloy) and the same elastic modulus are sufficient. Also the stability of the sample needs to be considered as this will affect the load being applied... Despite this I think TIV has some use in a laboratory setting for coatings and thin materials where test parameters can be tightly controlled. poldi hardness tester givsthe best ak1965 (Mechanical) brimstoner 10 Sep 11 4:27 to me. we get good results. Equotip have some or other limitations. someone may already have the notes.. and not particularly confidence-inspiring when forced to rely on hardness measurements as a key source of damage analysis. I don't know what "partly" means but I think in marketing terms it means "probably not suitable". If you do some fishing.! All of the electronic testers give good results when the strucutre under test is heavy .. I should think that similar class (steels incl.! we all konw that calibration pieces are made heavy . for field usage... the TIV gives quite large scatter in hardness.. what you said is OLD is GOLD. Mr168 (Materials) EPRI just had a recent conference over this issue a few weeks ago in their Charlotte branch. and rely your own eyes. I think if anything the YS:UTS ratio should be more significant.. but very very accurate. you know .. Under tubes..vibrations create hell of the confusion. so my next step is obtaining calibration standards in 2¼Cr-Mo and 9Cr-Mo.  http://www.. including standard deviations and inaccuracies between personnel working at the same labs. it was very eye-opening. The probe is very sensitive to probe alignment and surface finish.. otherwise.! looks bit old fashioned.

MIC10 for thinner wall and tubes and TIV for the super thin wall/coating applications. where operators don't understand that most of the displayed digits are random numbers. not significant figures. The handbooks supplied are only a guide more like marketing literature.brimstoner (Materials) 15 Sep 11 16:03 I am eagerly anticipating that report! My personal estimate of the percentage accuracy of field hardness testing is continually slipping downward. When you combine the general tendency of semi-technical types and laymen to believe anything that gets displayed on an instrument with the dumbing-down policies of inspection companies. Also it is important to select the appropriate hardness instrument for the job. but then the major chain I worked for did do training beyond turning the instrument on and calibrating. We also check using a pin brinell hardness tester onsite and the results show a very close match with the portable hardness testers. Equotip3 is best for castings and forgings and we don't use MIC10 for this application. the test result is usually expensive garbage. I find the biggest inaccuracies is from technicians who don't understand the limitations of the equipment and believe the handbook supplied as being the whole truth and nothing but the truth. However these days every man and is dog has a hardness tester which is why the accuracy of the equipment has fallen into disrepute. However I think in the field it can be useful for finding glaring errors caused by incorrect PWHT of P91. in my experience the MIC-10 has rarely been better than ±10%. However if care is taken with the calibration of the instruments using standards. it is now officially below 10%. so I am not entirely self-interested. brimstoner (Materials) Metaljon. And that figure excludes Brinell 'testing' done by heat treat contractors . We use Equotip3 for reasonably thick wall. and it then gets called 'chemical analysis'. 16 Sep 11 9:40 I concur with your first statement. [We need a separate thread dedicated to the practices of chain inspection companies (I will declare my interest now. the accuracy achieved is much better. The latest Equotip3 instrument allows input of best curve fit and this gives excellent correlation for aged P91 and stainless when compared to pin brinell. We regularly achieve accuracy of better than 2% and that is for difficult materials like P91 and stainless..] vesselguy (Petroleum) 19 Sep 11 9:56 .. But we are also considering equipment reliability and worker safety here. I see the same thing with PMI. I could not agree more with your last couple of sentences. for example. I find best to get metallurgists to do hardness testing as they have a better understanding of the material they are testing. The standard programs that come with Equotip and MIC10 are not good with P91 or stainless. since I compete with them in a few areas). Metaljon (Materials) 15 Sep 11 18:43 It is true that the general accuracy of the portable hardness is 10%. training of technicians and good surface preparation.

You pick a hardness. . Looks good on the huge. "Rebound" testerl like the Equotip are basically worthless in the field. This is why you have to calibrate the instruments and setup yourself. I normalise the samples following by quench and temper cycles. As long as the holder is hit hard enough to give an approx. We then do a curve fit and find best polynominal. Indentation is then read with 'scope like classic Brinnell. it is pretty Duwe6 (Industrial) 19 Sep 11 11:58 19 Sep 11 15:40 "Pin Brinnell" is an old-style tester that you whacked with a hammer hard enough that the pin broke. Metaljon (Materials) 21 Sep 11 1:18 The pin brinell is very useful for verifying the accuracy of the portable hardness testers. If you use the standard program setup for MIC10 and Equotip3 then expect an accuracy of about 10%. It has a shear pin that must break otherwise reading is invalid. For MIC10 we store the data and then re-manipulate data using best curve fit. polished. including the Mic 10.westportcorp. We use reasonably thick sections approx 40mm plate. No squinting in the microscope required. providing a 'calibrated' impact force. do you? brimstoner (Materials) http://www. The standard program supplied with the Equotip3 for steels or tools steels does not work for 12Cr. Also we check our hardness tester daily to check for no drift. 3mm indentation in the workpiece. And if you are looking for "less than 200 BHN". We have our own heat treatment furnace in the lab. The only tester with reproducable and accurate results I have used. Other than for side-by-side comparisons of materials. Just needs a consistent hammer blow and then measure the indent. We check hardness onsite using pin brinell. If the indent in the work is noticebally larger than the one in the bar. We manufacture our own hardness blocks as there is nothing commercially available. For Equotip3 it gives an option to input curve fit parameters.Metaljon. Only downside is that it leave a big brinell indent in the surface and it is a bit slow. all you have to do is 'eyeball' the indentations. Pardon my ignorance but I would like to know what do you mean when you say "pin brinell"? What is that? You don't mean doing microhardness testing such as Vickers. I temper back into about 6 conditions covering the whole range from quenched to very degraded condition. We check the hardness using a brinell tester 3000kg and then compare the results to the portable hardness readings. P91 or aged stainless. Very easy to use. Gives irreproducible results in the field. and I can just keep testing until that number is found. dead-flat cal block. We always get very consistent results. For example for P91 we have hardness blocks ranging from 400HB to 160 HB. if you use a 200 BHN bar for the reference bar. But it won't be repeatable. you write "significantly less than 200 BHN". The problem with the MIC10 instrument is that it assume a linear interpolation across the whole hardness range which is not correct for P22 and 9Cr. is the "Telebrinneller" style.

and not necessarily hardness testing. PWHT is performed at a temperature that should not affect bulk properties. in that you should fall back on tensiles because thats what the mechanical requirements in the standards refer to. something else happened to cause softening. IF the hardness testing was performed remote from the weld region. stanweld (Materials) 9 Sep 10 12:33 I've seen some very low carbon equivalents for the involved materials and I would not doubt the potential for lowered hardness after 2 hrs PWHT. What is the minimum acceptable base metal hardness for above two material after PWHT? how to handle this situation. you will see local softening of the base material because of the heat from welding. In particular. This is a typical response for this material. The results of the tensile tests should decide the fate of this material. The base metal hardness for A105 was 155-160BHN & for pipe A106 GrB was 135-138 BHN before fabrication. the specific case of a rebound tester on thin sections tends to lead to lower than expected hardness values.The value are not . Normally. metengr (Materials) 8 Sep 10 15:37 LahaneD. kclim (Materials) 9 Sep 10 4:59 How were the hardness measurements taken? With an actual Brinell indenter or were they converted? Sometimes the conversion error can be significant. especially in the HAZ and the materials were thin wall. Tend to agree with meteng. After welding & PWHT(stress relieving at 620 deg C for 2hrs)the hardness for A 105 was 111-120 BHN & that of for A 106 GrB was 102-108 BHN. Another factor could be surface preparation that could cause lower readings. What I would do is to have a weld coupon of the same material used in production and exposed to PWHT and have tensile specimens removed.The hardness reading was taken very close to the weld on base metal. Where was the location for the post weld hardness testing? IF it was located next to the weld region. Now the customer is not accepting the material by saying that UTS for A106 GrB may have dropped below to its min requirement. It's a longshot. Click Here to donate. LahaneD (Mechanical) 8 Sep 10 14:00 One of my project pipe spool required PWHT & production hardness test.The weld hardness was between 175-180 BHN.Eng-Tips Forums is Member Supported. I am confused???? A quick reply is appreciated.The material for Pipe spool was A105/A106 GrB (sch STD)& NACE MR0175 was specified on spool drawing. LahaneD (Mechanical) 9 Sep 10 13:31 The hardness reading were taken with portable hardness tester (rebound type). but thought I'd throw it out there. LahaneD (Mechanical) 9 Sep 10 1:02 The PWHT was done for weld joints only (localized).

you are only dealing with maximum hardness to ensure adequate tempering after welding/fabrication. 7. The only sure thing are tensile test results to evaluate mechanical properties.5 a quality check for multiple forgings. there is no hardness testing. You will need to redo the hardness testing following ASTM A 370. UTS = 60ksi. UTS = 70ksi. The way I see it. stanweld (Materials) 9 Sep 10 14:44 The rebound hardness values are highly suspect.converted. you have not in any way violated code requirements as a result of fabrication based on information you provided. If the post weld mechanical test results meet Table 3 of SA 105 and SA 106. so i will not accept the rejection in above case unless it is proved by customer that i have violated the code requirement. the two materials after PWHT may not be acceptable because the UTS may be dropt below the SMTS (specified minimum tensile strength. ASTM A105 (2009). The hardness testing may also . right? metengr (Materials) 10 Sep 10 7:27 LahaneD.and minimum 135-145 BHN is required for the strength. But is my stand valid that i am not violating the code requirement as code only gives max hardness limit & not minimum. the mechanical properties have not been compromised. There are procedure techniques associated with hardness testing that can effect results. take some of this material and simulate production welding and have a lab perform tensile tests as though you were qualifying a weld procedure.4 indicates the hardness of all forgings so tested shall be 137 to 187 HB inclusive while A106-B does not have the hardness limitation. 70 ksi for A1-5 and 60 ksi for A106-B). The reason most material specifications for ASME Code applications do not have a minimum hardness value is that the concern is for lack of ductility post fabrication. Please find API 579 (2007).1. This is why a maximum hardness would be specified in most cases. For SA 106. period. I reviewed SA 105. I am not violating the code requirements here. They are more than likely to lead to a low BHN value in the conversion process. Table F.3. TomEun (Materials) 9 Sep 10 14:56 Unless you proved the actual mechanical properties from the heated material. If the client has a concern with hardness testing because NACE MR0175. However normally minimum 120-125 BHN is required for the strength. Hardness testing should be used as a quality check regarding post fabrication heat treatment effectiveness. Thomas Eun metengr (Materials) 9 Sep 10 15:04 Unless a specific hardness range is provided within a material specification. The only mention of hardness testing in this specification occurs when a subsize tensile specimen cannot be obtained from a forging that is too small to verify mechanical properties or as in 9. LahaneD (Mechanical) 10 Sep 10 2:45 so metengr. With that said. I would not use hardness to approximate tensile strength. the maximum hardness listed by specification in Table 3 of SA 105 is 187 BHN. I would not trust their validity at all. I am sure all pressure components had strength-calculated with the allowable stresses based on the SMTS before the fabrication. as I mentioned above. If the client still believes the mechanical properties have been compromised because of fabrication.

The design code here is ASME B31.where the minimum allowable stress at 100F is 20 ksi for A106 GrB. 23 Sep 10 20:01 .3. Thanks for your help metengr (Materials) Excellent. Sometimes a little extra work pays off big. So. have I violated ASME B 31. there is no hardness requirement. In ASME B31.need to be redone to verify compliance with NACE MR0175.3 code requirement in above case? metengr (Materials) 13 Sep 10 7:43 LahaneD. after PWHT. LahaneD (Mechanical) 23 Sep 10 13:38 metengr I have done simulation on same heat pipe & results are good after PWHT. no you have not violated code requirements. LahaneD (Mechanical) 13 Sep 10 2:09 metengr.The tensile sample did pass the test.3. Does it help in any way to support my lower hardness in above case.