Professional Documents
Culture Documents
CEC2000
March 23, 2000, Lake Alfred, Florida, USA
CEC2000-4605
BY
Richard E. Avery, P. E.
Consultant to the
Nickel Development Institute
Londonderry, NH
INTRODUCTION
Austenitic stainless steel tube and pipe systems are a vital part of today's sanitary
(hygienic) processing facilities. Product contact surface welds in the tubular systems
usually cannot be ground or conditioned, so it is essential that the as-welded surfaces are
suitable for cleaning-in-place (CIP).
The American Welding Society AWS D l 8 Committee was formed in respond to the
request by the 3-A Sanitary Standards Committee for help in preparing welding standards
for use in the manufacture and construction of dairy and food product processing plants.
The 3-A Sanitary Standards Committees develop and promulgate sanitary design stan-
dards for dairy and food processing, packaging and handling equipment and systems.
The paper also includes design and operation guidelines that have proven useful to
engineers and users of austenitic stainless steel piping systems.
It was an early decision that the weld quality standards in the specification should be in
agreement with the current practices used by sanitary weld inspectors. One of the commit-
tee members arranged to make 36 weld samples in 2 in. OD, 0.065 in. wall, Type 304 or
Unified Numbering System (UNS S30400) tubing. The welds were all manual Gas Tung-
sten Arc Welds (GTAW) made without filler metal addition. A number of welds were
purposely made to include ID weld defects. The inside and outside surfaces were left in the
as-welded condition. The welds were "round-robin" examined by six welding inspectors
recruited from a list supplied by the 3-A Sanitary Committee Secretary and then examined
by the D l 8 committee. The inspectors were asked to first judge weld acceptance based
only on the outside weld surface, as would be the case of a field weld where the inside was
inaccessible for a visual examination. After the outside examination, the inside weld
surface was judged and reported.
There was usually 75% or greater agreement among the inspectors on weld
acceptance or non-acceptance
The inspection of the outside weld surface in most instances agreed with the
AWS D18.1:1999
D l 8.1 :I999 addresses welding qualification and visual examination requirements prior
to postweld conditioning. The specification does not cover the "how-to-do-it" aspects of
making small diameter tubular welds in austenitic stainless steels. Welding procedure
details are covered very completely in other documents. (1)
QUALIFICATION
Traditionally, welding qualifications have been generated for particular industries or end-
use applications such as high-pressure piping systems. Two widely use qualification
standards are ASME Section Vlll and AWS B2.1. (2), (3) The food industry has been lax
with regards to welding qualification requirements, often allowing welding qualification
details to be the option of the fabricators or constructors. Admittedly, food industry process
equipment welds do not represent the safety risk associated with high-pressure piping
welds, but some degree of formalized procedures and documentation can be very benefi-
cial to the owners. The D18.1 specification addressed Procedure Qualification and Perfor-
mance Qualification and introduces a new concept of a Preconstruction Weld Sample
(PWS). The plant owners or their representatives have the option of imposing all or none of
these items.
PROCEDURE QUALIFICATION
D18.1 requires that a written qualified Welding Procedure Specification (WPS) be made
for each type of weld used in a sanitary plant application. The WPS can be in any format
provided all the welding variables are recorded. Usually it is most convenient to use the
format of ASME Section Vlll or AWS 82.1. A detail description of welding variables is
beyond the scope of this presentation, but briefly they include such items as:
Filler metals - the addition or deletion of filler metal or the type of filler metal
Shielding gas - a change of torch shielding or backing gas
Electrical characteristics - a change in current type or in pulsing current
Test welds are then made following the written WPS and the welds examined by visual
and mechanical tests. The visual examination is made using the acceptance criteria to be
described later in this paper. Weld mechanical tests are tensile, root bend, and face bend
tests made in accordance with ANSIIAWS B4.0, Standard Methods for Mechanical Testing
of Welds.
PERFORMANCE QUALIFICATION
Maximum allowable concavity shall be 0.006 in. (0.1 5 mm), as shown in Figure 2.
Maximum allowable convexity shall be 0.012 in. (0.3 mm), as shown in Figure 3.
Manual welds shall have a minimum weld face of 2T where T is the tube wall
thickness, as shown in Figure 4.
Maximum allowable concavity shall be 0.012 in. (0.3 mm). (The outside concavity
of the weld results in a convex condition on the inside weld contour. There is a
greater tendency for the inside of the weld to "sag" causing a high convex contour,
hence the limit of 0.006 in. [0.15 mm] on the outside surface.)
Maximum allowable convexity shall be 0.012 in. (0.3 mm).
Oxide islands greater than 1116-in. diameter shall be unacceptable. No more than
four oxide islands shall be present in any weld. See Figure 6.
The weld surface shall not contain excessive heat-tint oxidation or discoloration
It is not possible to adequately describe and convey various degrees to heat tint or weld
discoloration verbally, although many welding specifications attempt to do so. AWS D l 8.1
and a special version, AWS D18.2:1999, have a color photograph showing ten different
degrees of heat tint. A black and white version is shown in Figure 5, but a color photograph
is needed to depict the different degrees of oxidation.
A word of how the sample was made: Ten full penetration autogenous welds were made
on the outside of a 2-in. (50 mm) 316L stainless steel tube. Welds on 304L tubing showed
no significant difference from 316L. Oxygen was added to the pure argon backing purge
gas to obtain the oxygen levels shown in welds No. 1 through 10.
The illustration should be used as a reference to identify the degree of heat-tint oxide by
number and not to specify oxygen limits in the backing gas. The acceptable degree of heat
tint can vary with different service environments. The cost involved in obtaining very low
levels of heat tint should be considered when specifying such levels.
The amount of heat-tint oxide and its appearance can be influenced by factors other
than oxygen, such as:
High levels of moisture in the backing gas can increase the degree of heat tint.
Contaminants, such as hydrocarbons, moisture, and some types of particulate on
the surface prior to welding, can affect discoloration levels.
Hydrogen in the argon backing gas can significantly reduce the amount of heat-tint
oxide.
- The metal's surface finish can affect the appearance of heat tint.
Heat tint is an oxide, primarily of chromium, that forms on the weld and the heat-affected
zone in the presence of oxygen. The discoloration may vary from straw yellow, deep
golden, rose, blue or gray, to almost a black color. When the heat tint is tightly adhering, it
does not break off to cause a product contamination problem. In some environments such
as those involving chlorides or unclean water, the corrosion resistance is reduced in the
heat-tint area and pitting or crevice corrosion is likely.
Heat tint can be avoided by limiting oxygen in the backing purge area of pipes to very
low levels, e.g., 25 ppm of oxygen or less. This can consistently be accomplished in orbital
welding where very accurate joint fit-ups are required and high purity purging can be
obtained, but it is difficult with normal manual welding conditions.
Avoid dead legs and sections that cannot be drained during shut-down or stand-
by.
Provide inspection or wash-out ports on horizontal runs to allow flushing of sedi-
ment.
Design for maximum flow rate consistent with pressure drop to reduce sediment
deposits.
At some stage in the construction or operation of food plants with stainless steel
components, ordinary water is involved. This may be water used for hydrostatic testing,
system flushing or cleaning, or other operational processing. Therefore, it is useful to
summarize some of the guidelines in water handling, which is covered in more detail
elsewhere. (7) (8)
CHLORIDES
The chloride level of the water is an important factor in determining the resistance of
stainless steel to crevice and pitting corrosion. Recognize, though, that there are other
important interacting factors that may have a major role, such as the presence of strong
oxidants, crevice geometry and pH. Laboratory trials and support service experience
suggest in most cases natural, raw and potable water with a pH of 6.5 to 8:
CHLORINE
The addition of oxidants such as chlorine, up to some limiting concentration, can be
beneficial to stainless steels in preventing microbiologically influenced corrosion (MIC).
The residual chlorine as it leaves a potable water treatment plant may typically be 1.8 mg/
I, which is an entirely safe level for Type 304. In fact, levels as high as 25 mg/l of chlorine
for 24 hours is a standard disinfecting treatment. There is another important effect of
chlorine. In moist vapors above the water line, chlorine can reach concentrations that stain
and even pit 304 or 316 stainless steels. This is almost always more of a cosmetic problem
than structural, but pitting can occur with long-time exposure in un-ventilated areas.
For hydrostatic testing, ballast, settling and run-in procedures, use the cleanest
water available, i.e., demineralized, steam condensate, potable, etc.
Regardless of water quality, drain, dry and inspect to assure dryness immediately
following a hydrostatic test, i.e., within 3 to 5 days.
Eliminate or at least minimize crevices in fabrication.
Avoid heat tint in pipe welds with good inert gas backing procedures. Where
unavoidable, remove heat tint scale by grinding, abrasive blasting, pickling or
electropolishing.
Slope horizontal pipelines and heat exchangers to make them self-draining.
SUMMARY
AWS D18.1, Specification for Welding sf Austenitic Stainless Steel Tube and Pipe
Systems in Sanitary (Hygienic) Applications has recently been made available to the food
industry for technical support in welding piping systems. The particular areas addressed
are Welding Qualification and Visual Examination Requirements. By implementing the
specification provisions, it is expected that improved stainless steel piping systems will be
realized by the food industries.
REFERENCES:
1) AWS D l 0.4, Guide for Welding Chromiurn-Nickel Stainless Steel Piping and
Tubing, American Welding Society, 550 N. W. LeJeune, Miami, FL
2) ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section IX, Welding and Brazing Re-
quirements, ASME P. 0. Box 2900, Fairfield, NJ
3) ANSIIAWS 82.1 :1998, Specification for Welding Procedure and Performance
Qualifications, AWS
0.006 in. f
Figure 2 - Non-product contact surface -
Maximum concavity
0.012 in. f
Figure - 3 Non-product contact surface -
Maximum convexity
MAXIMUM WELD
I'FACEWIDTH-W
4 MINIMUM WELD
FACE WIDTH 0.75 W -
Figure 5 - Minimum face width for manual welding -
75% of W where W = maximum face width
WELD TERMINATION
WITH OXIDE ISLAND
ON INSIDE OF TUBE