The Effect of Material Heterogeneity and Temperature on Impact Toughness and Fracture Resistance of SA-387 Gr. 91 Welded Joints
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Methods
2.1. Impact Testing on Charpy Instrumented Pendulum
2.2. Fracture Toughness, KIc, Testing
3. Results
3.1. Impact Testing
3.2. Fracture Toughness Testing
4. Conclusions
- Both steels, SA-387 Gr. 91 and A-387 Gr. B, as well as their welded joints, have high resistance to cracking, both for static and impact loading. This conclusion also holds for SA 387 Gr. 91 WM, even though its resistance to cracking is lower than BM and HAZ, but well above 41 J, which is the minimum value for the BM.
- The effect of material heterogeneity on impact toughness is more heavily expressed for SA-387 Gr. 91 than for A-387 Gr. B, since the WM in the former case has lower values of crack initiation and growth energies, whereas these values are balanced in the latter case. A reduction of impact toughness in the case of SA-387 Gr. 91 steel is mostly due to crack-growth energy, which is significantly smaller than for SA-387 Gr. 91 BM and HAZ, but still at a satisfying level.
- The effect of temperature on impact toughness is similar, but more pronounced, since both energies are lower in all cases, approximately 1/3 less than at room temperature, but still at a satisfying level.
- The effect of material heterogeneity on fracture toughness is similar to its effect on impact toughness, but more expressed for SA-387 Gr. 91 than for A-387 Gr. B, for the same reason as in the case of impact toughness. The effect of temperature on fracture toughness is also similar to its effect on impact toughness. One can say that the behavior of both materials and their welded joints in respect to cracking is practically the same for static and impact loading.
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Milovic, L. Is Substituting P91 for P22 Justified? Fracture at all Scales. In Mechanical Engineering; Pluvinage, G., Milovic, L., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2017; pp. 89–103. [Google Scholar]
- Milović, L.; Vuherer, T.; Zrilić, M.; Sedmak, A.; Putić, S. Study of the simulated heat affected zone of creep resistant 9–12% advanced chromium steel. Mater. Manuf. Process. 2008, 23, 597–602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Łomozik, M.; Zielińska-Lipiec, A. Microscopic analysis of the influence of multiple thermal cycles on simulated HAZ toughness in P91 steel. Arch. Met. Mater. 2008, 53, 1025–1034. [Google Scholar]
- Milović, L.; Vuherer, T.; Blačić, I.; Vrhovac, M.; Stanković, M. Microstructures and mechanical properties of creep resistant steel for application at elevated temperatures. Mater. Des. 2013, 46, 660–667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Milovic, L. Significance of cracks in the heat-affected-zone of steels for elevated temperature application. Struct. Integr. Life 2008, 8, 55–64. [Google Scholar]
- Moitra, A. A toughness study of the weld heat-affected zone of a 9Cr-Mo steel. Mater. Charact. 2002, 48, 55–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Y. Correlation between intercritical heat-affected zone and type IV creep damage zone in Gr. 91 steel. Metall. Mats. Trans. A 2018, 49, 1264–1275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Y.; Kannan, R.; Li, L. Identification and Characterization of Intercritical Heat Affected Zone in As-welded Grade 91 Weldment. Metall. Mater. Trans. A 2016, 47, 5680–5684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Y.; Kannan, R.; Zhang, L.; Li, L. Microstructural Analysis of As-Welded Heat Affected Zone of Grade 91 Steel Heavy Section Weldment. Weld. J. 2017, 96, 203s–219s. [Google Scholar]
- Abe, F.; Tabuchi, M.; Tsukamoto, S.; Shirane, T. Microstructure evolution in HAZ and suppression of type IV fracture in advanced ferritic power plant steels. Int. J. Press. Ves. Pip. 2010, 87, 598–604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, L. Experimental investigation of specimen size effect on creep crack growth behavior in P92 steel welded joint. Mater. Des. 2014, 57, 736–743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jovanović, M.; Čamagić, I.; Sedmak, S.; Živković, P.; Sedmak, A. Crack Initiation and Propagation Resistance of HSLA Steel Welded Joint Constituents. Struc. Integr. Life 2020, 20, 11–14. [Google Scholar]
- Čamagić, I.; Jović, S.; Radojković, M.; Sedmak, S.; Sedmak, A.; Burzić, Z.; Delamarian, C. Influence of Temperature and Exploitation Period on the Behaviour of a Welded Joint Subjected to Impact Loading. Struc. Integr. Life 2016, 16, 179–185. [Google Scholar]
- Čamagić, I.; Sedmak, S.; Sedmak, A.; Burzić, Z.; Todić, A. Impact of Temperature and Exploitation Time on Plane Strain Fracture Toughness, KIc, in a Welded Joint, I. Struc. Integr. Life 2017, 17, 239–244. [Google Scholar]
- Čamagić, I.; Sedmak, A.; Sedmak, S.; Burzić, Z. Relation between impact and fracture toughness of A-387 Gr. B welded joint, 25th International Conference on Fracture and Structural Integrity. Procedia Struct. Integr. 2019, 18, 903–907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Čamagić, I.; Sedmak, S.; Sedmak, A.; Burzić, Z.; Marsenić, M. Effect of temperature and exploitation time on tensile properties and plain strain fracture toughness, KIc, in a welded joint, IGF Workshop “Fracture and Structural Integrity”. Procedia Struct. Integr. 2018, 9, 279–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Čamagić, I.; Sedmak, S.; Sedmak, A.; Burzić, Z.; Aranđelović, M. The impact of the temperature and exploitation time on the tensile properties and plain strain fracture toughness, KIc in characteristic areas of welded joint. Frat. Ed Integrita Strut. 2018, 46, 371–382. [Google Scholar]
- Čamagić, I.; Vasić, N.; Ćirković, B.; Burzić, Z.; Sedmak, A.; Radović, A. Influence of temperature and exploitation period on fatigue crack growth parameters in different regions of welded joints. Frat. Integrita Strut. 2016, 36, 1–7. [Google Scholar]
- Jovanović, M.; Čamagić, I.; Sedmak, A.; Burzić, Z.; Sedmak, S.; Živković, P. Analysis of SA 387 Gr. 91 welded joints crack resistance under static and impact load. Procedia Struct. Integr. 2021, 31, 38–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- SRPS EN ISO 9016:2013: Destructive Tests on Welds in Metallic Materials—Impact Tests—Test Specimen Location, Notch Orientation and Examination; Serbian Institute for Standarisation: Belgrade, Serbia, 2013.
- Grabulov, V.; Burzić, Z.; Momčilović, D. Significance of Mechanical Testing for Structural Integrity; IFMASS: Belgrade, Serbia, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Mijatović, T.; Manjgo, M.; Burzić, M.; Čolić, K.; Burzić, Z.; Vuherer, T. Structural integrity assessment from the aspect of fracture mechanics. Struct. Integr. Life 2019, 19, 121–124. [Google Scholar]
- ASTM E 1820–99a: Standard Test Method for Measurement of Fracture Toughness, Annual Book of ASTM Standards; ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 1999.
- BS 7448-Part 2: Fracture Mechanics Toughness Tests—Methods for Determination of KIc, Critical CTOD and Critical J Values of Welds in Metallic Materials; BBI: Grand Forks, ND, USA, 1997.
Chemical Composition, Weight % | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
C | Si | Mn | P | S | Cr | Mo | Ni | V | Nb | Cu |
0.129 | 0.277 | 0.443 | 0.001 | 0.001 | 8.25 | 0.874 | 0.01 | 0.198 | 0.056 | 0.068 |
Filler Metal | C | Si | Mn | P | S | Cr | Mo | Ni | V | Nb | Cu |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
C9 MV-IG Ø2.4 mm | 0.11 | 0.23 | 0.5 | 0.006 | 0.003 | 9.0 | 0.93 | 0.5 | 0.19 | 0.07 | 0.0 |
FOX C9 MV Ø2.5 mm | 0.09 | 0.19 | 0.55 | 0.01 | 0.006 | 8.5 | 1.0 | 0.5 | 0.19 | 0.04 | 0.1 |
FOX C9 MV Ø3.25 mm | 0.11 | 0.26 | 0.66 | 0.008 | 0.005 | 8.5 | 0.94 | 0.5 | 0.20 | 0.06 | 0.1 |
Pass | Voltage V | Current A | Welding Speed mm/s | Linear Energy kJ/mm |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 12.2 | 172 | 0.3 | 4.2 |
2 | 12.2 | 172 | 0.6 | 2.1 |
3–4 | 12.2 | 172 | 0.9 | 1.4 |
5–9 | 25.4 | 126 | 3.0 | 0.85 |
10–14 | 25.4 | 126 | 2.6 | 0.98 |
Specimen | Testing Temperature, °C | Impact Total Energy, AT, J | Crack-Initiation Energy, AI, J | Crack-Growth Energy, AP, J |
---|---|---|---|---|
BM-1A | 251 | 58 | 193 | |
BM-2A | 20 | 268 | 60 | 208 |
BM-3A | 275 | 58 | 217 | |
average | 265 | 59 | 206 | |
BM-4A | 159 | 41 | 118 | |
BM-5A | 575 | 166 | 43 | 123 |
BM-6A | 155 | 41 | 114 | |
average | 160 | 42 | 118 |
Specimen Mark | Testing Temperature, °C | Impact Total Energy, AT, J | Crack-Initiation Energy, AI, J | Crack-Growth Energy, AP, J |
---|---|---|---|---|
WM-1A | 144 | 52 | 92 | |
WM-2A | 20 | 168 | 55 | 113 |
WM-3A | 156 | 52 | 104 | |
average | 156 | 53 | 103 | |
WM-4A | 92 | 28 | 64 | |
WM-5A | 575 | 94 | 28 | 66 |
WM-6A | 104 | 29 | 75 | |
average | 97 | 28 | 69 |
Specimen Mark | Testing Temperature, °C | Impact Total Energy, AT, J | Crack-Initiation Energy, AI, J | Crack-Growth Energy, AP, J |
---|---|---|---|---|
HAZ-1A | 248 | 70 | 178 | |
HAZ-2A | 20 | 246 | 69 | 177 |
HAZ-3A | 248 | 70 | 178 | |
average | 248 | 70 | 178 | |
HAZ-4A | 147 | 39 | 108 | |
HAZ-5A | 575 | 153 | 42 | 111 |
HAZ-6A | 138 | 40 | 98 | |
average | 146 | 40 | 106 |
Specimen Mark | Testing Temperature, °C | Impact Total Energy, AT, J | Crack-Initiation Energy, AI, J | Crack-Propagation Energy, AP, J |
---|---|---|---|---|
BM-1-1n | 20 | 204 | 47 | 157 |
BM-1-2n | 212 | 49 | 163 | |
BM-1-3n | 214 | 49 | 165 | |
average | 210 | 48 | 162 | |
BM-2-1n | 540 | 137 | 38 | 99 |
BM-2-2n | 139 | 40 | 99 | |
BM-2-3n | 145 | 41 | 104 | |
average | 141 | 40 | 101 |
Specimen Mark | Testing Temperature, °C | Impact Total Energy, AT, J | Crack-Initiation Energy, AI, J | Crack-Propagation Energy, AP, J |
---|---|---|---|---|
WM-1-1 | 20 | 193 | 56 | 137 |
WM-1-2 | 190 | 60 | 130 | |
WM-1-3 | 183 | 60 | 123 | |
average | 189 | 59 | 130 | |
WM-2-1 | 540 | 139 | 40 | 99 |
WM-2-2 | 133 | 39 | 94 | |
WM-2-3 | 134 | 39 | 95 | |
average | 135 | 39 | 96 |
Specimen Mark | Testing Temperature, °C | Impact Total Energy, AT, J | Crack-Initiation Energy, AI, J | Crack-Propagation Energy, AP, J |
---|---|---|---|---|
HAZ-1-1e | 20 | 186 | 47 | 139 |
HAZ-1-2e | 187 | 45 | 142 | |
HAZ-1-3e | 183 | 47 | 136 | |
average | 185 | 46 | 139 | |
HAZ-2-1e | 540 | 143 | 46 | 97 |
HAZ-2-2e | 131 | 43 | 88 | |
HAZ-2-3e | 129 | 42 | 87 | |
average | 134 | 44 | 90 |
Specimen Mark | Testing Temperature, °C | Critical J-Integral, JIc, kJ/m2 | Critical Stress Intensity Factor, KIc, MPa∙m1/2 |
---|---|---|---|
BM-1K | 20 | 131.1 | 173.9 |
BM-2K | 144.2 | 182.4 | |
BM-3K | 124.0 | 169.2 | |
average | 175.0 | ||
BM-4K | 575 | 78.5 | 122.9 |
BM-5K | 80.9 | 124.7 | |
BM-6K | 81.9 | 125.5 | |
average | 124.4 |
Specimen Mark | Testing Temperature, °C | Critical J-Integral, JIc, kJ/m2 | Critical Stress Intensity Factor, KIc, MPa∙m1/2 |
---|---|---|---|
WM-1K | 20 | 71.6 | 128.5 |
WM-2K | 64.8 | 122.3 | |
WM-3K | 69.2 | 126.4 | |
average | 125.7 | ||
WM-4K | 575 | 51.2 | 99.2 |
WM-5K | 40.1 | 87.8 | |
WM-6K | 38.6 | 86.2 | |
average | 91.1 |
Specimen Mark | Testing Temperature, °C | Critical J-Integral, JIc, kJ/m2 | Critical Stress Intensity Factor, KIc, MPa∙m1/2 |
---|---|---|---|
HAZ-1K | 20 | 97.6 | 150.1 |
HAZ-2K | 88.9 | 143.2 | |
HAZ-3K | 92.1 | 145.8 | |
average | 146.4 | ||
HAZ-4K | 575 | 65.3 | 112.1 |
HAZ-5K | 61.6 | 108.8 | |
HAZ-6K | 68.5 | 114.8 | |
average | 111.9 |
Specimen Mark | Testing Temperature, °C | Critical J-Integral, JIc, kJ/m2 | Critical Stress Intensity Factor, KIc, MPa∙m1/2 |
---|---|---|---|
BM-1-1n | 20 | 60.1 | 117.8 |
BM-1-2n | 63.9 | 121.4 | |
BM-1-3n | 58.6 | 116.3 | |
average | 118.5 | ||
BM-2-1n | 540 | 43.2 | 87.2 |
BM-2-2n | 44.7 | 88.7 | |
BM-2-3n | 45.3 | 89.2 | |
average | 85.7 |
Specimen Mark | Testing Temperature, °C | Critical J-Integral, JIc, kJ/m2 | Critical Stress Intensity Factor, KIc, MPa∙m1/2 |
---|---|---|---|
WM-1-1 | 20 | 72.8 | 129.6 |
WM-1-2 | 74.3 | 130.9 | |
WM-1-3 | 71.1 | 128.1 | |
average | 129.5 | ||
WM-2-1 | 540 | 50.2 | 93.9 |
WM-2-2 | 52.6 | 96.2 | |
WM-2-3 | 48.4 | 92.2 | |
average | 94.1 |
Specimen Mark | Testing Temperature, °C | Critical J-Integral, JIc, kJ/m2 | Critical Stress Intensity Factor, KIc, MPa∙m1/2 |
---|---|---|---|
HAZ-1-1n | 20 | 53.6 | 111.2 |
HAZ-1-2n | 51.7 | 109.2 | |
HAZ-1-3n | 49.8 | 107.2 | |
average | 109.2 | ||
HAZ-2-1n | 540 | 33.6 | 76.9 |
HAZ-2-2n | 34.2 | 77.5 | |
HAZ-2-3n | 36.1 | 79.7 | |
average | 78.0 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Jovanović, M.; Čamagić, I.; Sedmak, S.; Sedmak, A.; Burzić, Z. The Effect of Material Heterogeneity and Temperature on Impact Toughness and Fracture Resistance of SA-387 Gr. 91 Welded Joints. Materials 2022, 15, 1854. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15051854
Jovanović M, Čamagić I, Sedmak S, Sedmak A, Burzić Z. The Effect of Material Heterogeneity and Temperature on Impact Toughness and Fracture Resistance of SA-387 Gr. 91 Welded Joints. Materials. 2022; 15(5):1854. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15051854
Chicago/Turabian StyleJovanović, Milivoje, Ivica Čamagić, Simon Sedmak, Aleksandar Sedmak, and Zijah Burzić. 2022. "The Effect of Material Heterogeneity and Temperature on Impact Toughness and Fracture Resistance of SA-387 Gr. 91 Welded Joints" Materials 15, no. 5: 1854. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15051854
APA StyleJovanović, M., Čamagić, I., Sedmak, S., Sedmak, A., & Burzić, Z. (2022). The Effect of Material Heterogeneity and Temperature on Impact Toughness and Fracture Resistance of SA-387 Gr. 91 Welded Joints. Materials, 15(5), 1854. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15051854