ML20205M860

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Testimony of Ma Hineman Re Intervenor Rorem QA Subcontention 10.B Concerning Matl Traceability.Related Correspondence
ML20205M860
Person / Time
Site: Braidwood  Constellation icon.png
Issue date: 04/11/1986
From: Hineman M
COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO., TAUSSIG ASSOCIATES, INC.
To:
Shared Package
ML20205M802 List:
References
OL, NUDOCS 8604150411
Download: ML20205M860 (22)
v • d • e


Text

. . . .. .. .

e 6 ..

f .

.xs RELATED CORRESPONDE.NCt g -

KP 11 1986 If BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSIN ROARD A)'*3*/

In the Matter of )

)

COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-456

) 50-457 (Braidwood Station Units 1 and 2) )

TESTIMONY OF MARK A. HINEMAN (ON ROREM Q.A. SUBCONTENTION 10.B)

(Material Traceability)

Q.l. Please state your full name for the record.

A.l. Mark A. Hineman.

Q.2. By whom are you employed and what is your position?

A.2. I am Senior Metallurgical Engineer for Taussig Associates, Inc., 7530 Frontage Road, Skokie, Illinois 60077.

l l

Q.3. Please describe your duties for Taussig.

A.3. My principal responsibility is to specify and supervise metallurgical testing of samples submitted to our laboratory. I am also responsible for review and interpretation of test results and for drafting and approval of test reports to our customers.

8604150411 860411 PDR ADOCK 05 4y6 T '

o o

Q.4. Please describe your educational and professional background.

A.4. I hold a Bachelor of Science degree in Metallurgical Engineering from the University of Illinois, Chicago (1976). I am a Registered Professional Engineer in the State of Illinois. I am a member of the American Society for Metals, American Welding Society, and the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. I have been employed by Taussig Associates in positions of increasing responsibility pertaining to metallurgical

. testing and analysis since November, 1976.

Q.5. To which subcontention is this testimony addressed?

A.5. My testimony relates to subcontention 10.B of Intervenor Rorem's Q.A. Contention.

Q.6. With what aspect of that subcontention is your testimony concerned?

A.6. My testimony describes the participation of Taussig Associates in the chemical and mechanical testing of metal cutouts removed from the Braidwood plant as part of the Material Traceability Verification (MTV) program.

Q.7. What was Taussig Associates' role with respect to the MTV testing?

i l

1

i A.7. Both Commonwealth Edison Company (CECO) and Sargent &

Lundy (S&L) were familiar with the work of Taussig Associates because we had done or supervised analyses for both in the past. In fact, we had recently handled analysis of other Braidwood samples associated with pipe corrosion.

On August 13, 1985, J.L. Tenwinkel of S&L, by letter to Mr. C.M. Berger of Taussig, formally asked Taussig to perform on-site chemical analyses of MTV cut-outs at Braidwood using a Spectro Model L mobile spectrometer in accordance with relevant portions of S&L test specifications previously issued for the corroded pipe testing. The purpose of this analysis was to confirm material type and grade based on design information provided by S&L. Taussig was also asked to perform tensile testing and to request laboratory chemical analysis by Chicago Spectro Service Laboratory, Inc.

(Chicago Spectro) on 15 specific samples selected by S&L. On approximately the 16th of August, Taussig reported to S&L that results of the chemical analysis using portable equipment were erratic and S&L directed us to discontinue that work.

I On August 20, 1985, J. Tenwinkel, by letter to C.M. Berger, directed Taussig to confirm the material O

i type and grade agreement for all MTV cutouts with design-specified material type and grade by laboratory chemical analysis, in lieu of portable analysis. These analyses were to be performed by Chicago Spectro.

Commonwealth Edison, by letter of Daniel J. Skoza to C.M. Berger dated August 20, 1985, indicated that it was shipping a large number of MTV samples directly to Chicago Spectro for chemical analysis and asked Taussig to also send those few samples then in its possession to Chicago Spectro. In all, Chicago Spectro received 120 samples in August. An additional 5 samples were added later, for a total of 125.

As an enclosure to the letter, Edison provided a shipping list which indicated the applicable ASTM material specification and type designation. These ASTM specifications and type designations list chemical composition ranges to which the materials specified are supposed to-conform. In its August 20 letter, S&L asked Taussig to confirm, based on the results of the Chicago Spectro chemical analysis, that the compositions of the materials analyzed conformed to the appropriate range of compositions for the indicated ASTM specification and type designation. It also. asked Taussig to confirm that the results of the tensile testing on the 15 samples designated in the August 13 s  !

1 l; l

letter and on an additional sample designated in the l

August 20 letter conformed to the tensile requirements j of the appropriate ASTM standard for each of those samples. l l

Q.8. What kind of chemical analysis did Chicago Spectro perform?

A.8, As described in the Testimony of Mr. Reinheimer (on quality assurance subcontention 10.B), Chicago Spectro used state-of-the-art methods of chemical analysis to determine alloy constituents and concentrations for the l samples we received.

Q.9. What other tests did Taussig perform on MTV samples?

A.9. As previously indicated, S&L asked us to perform tensile testing on 16 of the MTV cutouts. We performed pull tests either in full section or on machined specimens using a Tinius-Olson calibrated tensile testing instrument. From these tests, we obtained values for tensile strength, yield strength, and percent elongation for each of the 16 cutouts. In addition, we were asked to do a bend test on a stainless steel section of pipe which had a weld in it.

This section had been identified in NCR No. 3291.

Q.10. What did Taussig compare the results of the chemical and mechanical test results with?

A.10. For each MTV cutout, as the item was removed from the plant, it was determined from the design drawings which ASTM specifications and type designation the specific piece of piping material was supposed to meet. Many of the samples were ASTM A106 materials, some were A105 materials, some were A36 plate, some were A515 grade 65 plate, some were A516 grade 65 and 70 plate. The stainless steel samples were to meet ASTM standards A312, A182, A376, and A240.

Q.11. What did the comparison show?

A.ll. All submitted sample material conformed to the chemical requirements of the design-specified ASTM material type. The tensile test results also met the applicable ASTM requirements for the material specified. The bend test conformed to the requirements of the ASME Boiler &

Pressure Vessel Code,Section IX.

Q.13. What was your overall conclusion from the chemical and  ;

mechanical tests? j l

A.13. These results support the conclusion that in each case j the materials of the type specified were installed correctly in the plant.

Q.14. How were your results reported?

! I l

-4 i

t I

A.14. I reported the results of the measurements and analyses I have described in Taussig Report No. 64188-1 and 64188-la, dated October 8, 1985. (Attachment 10.B-(Hineman-1)).

4 s

N I

1 9

Y s u y

.. ., c

. .. .. .. . . v. . . . . . .

.= . .

, Y-5

'. . . ,- g,'

v

~

~. j } . , . . "

,7 ' - ._'

. . +

' ., . ... . - r

' . ' s.

^ ~

'2'

- Attachment 10.B

  • . . _. a J.,.g e

, (Hineman - 1) .

h , ,

-(,, ,, '

., ' . . . . ,g , .; i. . . , , , _ . , "-,, '

,e . , .,y s ..

-, O ... .. . . - ,,

'g  ;- '

y .'- ,

, . r. - - .- .- *

? ' ;. k -.

. $. . . '.~ , . ' $ , _E . . ,, . .

4-

~
  • l r,

.' ^'-+--.---'--'+."-'+9-

~

-, m

_. r , .y.

t

.. .. .s R _- ..,-

,.\._ , _ n 'y _,i.u,

...r.. ,,,,.-' [' ~.'. a.p _ ..< ' , . " -,,,._y.,

Mstallurgical Engineers 7saarroncagenoad = skosac.nnnos6oo77 = i 3:2676.z:00 7 I -=

c A

  • i?

. -l a

,3 Report No. 64188-1/ October 8, 1985 i SARGENT fu LUNDY ENGINEERS 55 East Monroe Street i

Chicago, Illinois 60603 _

E Attention: Mr. Gary Jones -

I E e

i ll' L n

f. .3 -

=

=

SUBJECT "

1. '

.=

Chemical and Tension Testing of Samples -

L Associated With the MTV Program. -l -

A

_m

- 9

-s 5

L 1

1

)

~

-umE m

E imma N

=

.- ~ j'- . ' - '. .~

' ~- ' -,

.' '.;j

. . . . e _. .. .  ;

.. s ~* -
: ', ( .

Attachment 10.B ... 2 a *j  ;. s

~

j.. (Hineman - 1) " ".

s . .. 'y .w .

. s, ,

JI. .

e. .

~

. . . , . . . , - .. . . . . . - s. . ..

f - ; , ; ;' . . . ' .. . : ,

,;? . , .; -> . -

~

. ~ : .. -: . . .. . ... .: . . . - -

.g.-

.. 1 7 9, _ ; ..'..,y . ~ .r. ., 7 Metallurgical Engineers 7s3orrentage Roaa e sko=n.sinnoiseco77 = i 3:2676 2100 l I 1

.1 I

a

-m 5

3 Report No. 64188-1/ October 8, 1985  ;

SARGENT E LUNDY ENGINEERS i 55 East Monroe Street i Chicago, Illinois 60603 j i Attention: Mr. Gary Jones _d I 4 7

a

=

lf L 1 l e SUBJECT

]

~

Chemical and Tension Testing of Samples j

Associated With the MTV Program.

E

==

mm 5

5

_==-f 5

'EE M

3

~

1

,L l

BACKGROUND:

One hundred and twenty-five (125) pieces were submitted to our laboratory from Commonwealth Edision at the Braidwood Station.

The 125 pieces were subjected to chemical analysis in accordance with Sargent & Lundy Consultant Specification 121 including Engineering Change Notice No. 27585. In addition, sixteen (16) specimens were to be subjected to tension testing. Each specimen i was identified with an NCR number along with MTV or other sample identification numbers. These identifications are listed in the test results table.

TEST PROCEDURE:

Chemical Analysis:

The 125 pieces were submitted to Chicago Spectro Services Laboratory for chemical analysis in accordance with ASTM A751. The 59 1 carbon steel samples were subjected to optical emission spectro-graphy for eight standard elements. Though the applicable speci-fications generally listed five elements for conformance, other I elements were analyzed to identify any other alloying elements.

The stainless steel samples were subjected to x-ray fluorescence testing for their eight standard elements. Carbon was analyzed f for all 125 samples by combustion analysis.

L Tension Testing:

_ Sixteen (16) samples were subjected to tension testing. Thirteen

, longitudinal specimens were cut and machined from these samples in accordance with ASTM A370. Three samples, NCR 2873, 4527, and 4824, were tested in full section. A .357" diameter round specimen was machined from NCR 3291 while the remaining 12 specimens were strip tests. Standard tensile tests were performed as specified by ASTM E8. The cross sectional areas of the test specimens were measured prior to testing and elongation marks were stamped on the' surface. A calibrated extensometer was used to drive a chart and permit determination of the yield strength.

L The maximum load prior to fracture was also recorded to permit calculation of the tensile strength. The elongation of each specimen was measured in 2 inches.

W W

L -

M M

.' Report No. 64188 Page 2 Sargent & Lundy i .

TEST RESULTS:

Chemical Analysis:

The results of the chemical analyses revealed all 125 samples to 1 I conform to their applicable specifications. No evidence of any unusual alloying elements were identified during testing. The test results are shown in Tables I and II with a summary of the chemical requirements in Tables IVa and IVb. The requirements l shown are for heat analysis or as specification allows, the product analysis. The requirements for ASTM A358-75 refers to

specification A240 for chemical and tensile requirements.

Tension Testing:

The sixteen tensile test specimens meet the tensile test require- '

ments of their reported specifications. The results of these tests are shown in Table III. A summary of the test requirements

/ are given in Tables IVa and IVb.

t Respectfully submitted, s Mark A. Hineman

{ Senior Metallurgical Engineer TAUSSIG ASSOCIATES, INC.

L l

l L

I e

M

. . - . . - , , _ . _ . . -.,,_,,,-..__,._..f, '-e- e-- + '-w-* e-- em --W-- r --+riv,vv -v-- e-- **-r-- --*7- - - ---'t=

TABLE I - CARBON STEELS (Page 1 of 4) l NCRf 2071 2089 2133 2133 2182 2182 I MTVf 2 34 8 3 -- --

SAMPLE -- -- -- --

Bin 55 Bin 69 CARBON .23% .13% .22% .23% .25% .25%

MANGANESE .69 .71 .70 .70 .90 .92 PHOSPHORUS .009 .010 .010 .012 .009 .010 SULFUR .013 .028 .016 .017 .015 .013 SILICON .23 .12 .15 .15 .18 .18 NICKEL <.01 .07 .01 <.01 <.01 <.01 CHROMIUM .01 .11 .03 .03 .03 .03 MOLYBDENUM .01 .01 .01 .01 <.01 <.01 COPPER .01 .23 .01 .01 <.01 .01 NOTE A A A A A A i

NCRf 2182 2183 2183 2353 2353 2378

< MTVf A B -- -- --

l s SAMPLE Bin 63 -- --

1 2 --

CARBON .26% .23% .20% .21% .21% .23%

MANGANESE .85 .68 .67 .97 .94 .81 PHOSPHORUS .010 .011 .008 .013 .013 .011 SULFUR .016 .018 .011 .019 .016 .008 SILICON .15 .23 .18 .12 .12 .15 NICKEL <.01 <.01 <.01 .02 .02 <.01 CHROMIUM .02 .02 .01 .04 .04 .03 MOLYBDENUM <.01 .01 <.01 .01 .01 <.01 COPPER (.01 .01 .01 .06 1

.06 .02  :

NOTE A A A A A A NCRf 2902 2953 2973 2973 2984 2984 MTVf 3 1 13 47 3 3 SAMPLE CARBON Ring 1 Ring 2

.21% .20% .20% .20% .21% .21%

MANGANESE .88 i

.92 .72 .78 1.08 1.13 l PHOSPHORUS .014 .013 .012 .011 .012 .012 '

SULFUR .017 .017 013 SILICON .013 .013 .016

.12 .11 .11 .13 .23 .24 NICKEL .02 .01 <.01 <.01 <.01 <.01 CHROMIUM .04 .04 .04 .05 .02 .02 MOLYBDENUM .01 <.01 <.01 <.01 .01 .01 COPPER .06 .05 .05

{ NOTE A A A

.06 A

.01 .01 C C W

i TABLE I - CARBON STEELS

( (Page 2 of 4)

[

NCRf 2984 2984 2984 2984 2984 2984 MTVf 3 3 3 3 3 3 SAMPLE Ring 3 Ring 4 Plate 1 Plate 2 Plate 3 Plate 4 CARBON .21% .22% .18% .19% .19% .20%

MANGANESE 1.13 1.13 .42 .42 .44 .42 PHOSPHORUS .012 .013 .008 .008 .007 .008 SULFUR .015 .014 .023 .023 .024 .026 I SILICON .24 .24 .11 .11 .10 .11 NICKEL <.01 <.01 .11 .12 .11 .11 CHROMIUM .02 .02 .13 .13 .13 .13 1 MOLYBDENUM .01 .01 .04 .04 .04 .04 COPPER .01 .01 .19 .20 .19 .19 NOTE C C C C C C NCRf 2993 2993 3165 3166 3166 3226 MTVf 5,19 5,19 12 5 5 1 SAMPLE 1 2 --

1 2 --

[r CARBON .20% .20% .23% .13% .13% .237.

ls MANGANESE .77 .78 .88 .52 .52 .84 PHOSPHORUS .010 .010 .011 .012 .012 .012 SULFUR .016 .018 .016 .010 .010 .024 SILICON .13 .13 .24 .20 .20 .15 NICKEL .01 .01 .12 .17 .18 <.01 CHROMIUM .03 .03 .15 .18 .18 .02 MOLYBDENUM <.01 <.01 .03 .05 .05 <.01 L COPPER .02 .02 .11 .33 .34 .01 NOTE A A A D D A L

NCRf 3327 3327 3334 3334 3335 3350 MTVf 7 6 1 19 2 11,13 L SAMPLE -- -- -- -- --

1 CARBON .22% .22% .21% .21% .22% .18%

MANGANESE .89 .72 .89 .86 .59 .78 PHOSPHORUS .010 .009 .016 .015 .008 .010 )

SULFUR .017 .015 .016 .016 .015 .016 SILICON .18 .16 .15 .13 .14 .15 NICKEL .01 .05 .01 <.01 <.01 <.01 CHROMIUM .09 .05 .06 .05 .01 .05 MOLYBDENUM .03 .03 <.01 <.01 .01 <.01 COPPER .02 .01 .05 .05 .01 .01 NOTE A A A A A A

TABLE I - CARBON STEELS

( (Page 3 of 4)

NCRf 3350 3365 3365 3422 3422 3422 MTVf 11,13 27 25 6 1 2 SAMPLE 2 -- -- -- --

CARBON .18% .21% .21% .23% .26% .24%

f- MANGANESE .78 .86 .83 .62 .90 .75 PHOSPEORUS .011 .016 .015 .008 .009 .009 SULFUR .015 .019 .016 .018 .021 .020 SILICON .15 .14 .13 .18 .18 .17 NICKEL <.01 .01 <.01 <.01 <.01 <.01 l CHROMIUM .05 .05 .05 .02 .02 .02 l MOLYBDENUM <.01 <.01 <.01 <.01 <.01 <.01 COPPER .01 .05 .05 .01 .01 .01 NOTE A A A A A A 1

l NCRf 3433 3458 3470 3474 3474 3488 i MTVf 17 --

9 -- -- --

SAMPLE -- -- --

A B --

- CARBON .21% .25% .23% .24% .23% .25%

, MANGANESE .87 .79 .61 .83 .82 .79 PHOSPHORUS .011 .013 .009 .012 .012 .007 SULFUR .017 .015 .019 .013 .013 .016 SILICON .19 .14 .17 .16 .16 .16 NICKEL .01 <.01 .01 <.01 <.01 .01 CHROMIUM .08 .05 .02 .02 .02 .05 MOLYBDENUM .04 <.01 .01 <.01 <.01 .03 COPPER .03 .02 <.01 <.01 <.01 .02 NOTE A D A A A A NCRf 3518 3594 3594 3594 4022 4032 MTVf -- -- -- --

1 6 SAMPLE --

A Flange B Flange Pipe -- --

CARBON , .19% .24% c .24% .20% .25% .24%

MANGANESE 1.25 .96 .89 .71 .69 .97

_ PHOSPHORUS .033 .009 .008 .012 .011 .011 SULFUR .019 .021 .018 .012 .019 .014 SILICON .28 .25 .24 .15 .15 .27 NICKEL .02 .05 .05 .01 <.01 .01 l CHROMIUM .05 .04 .04 .03 .03 .11 l MOLYBDENUM .01 .02 .01 .01 <.01 .05 COPPER .03 .13 .13 .02 <.01 .02 NOTE F B B A A A

( _

WW

TABLE I - CARBON STEELS (Page 4 of 4) l I

I I NCRf 4079 4100 4294 4527 4605

MTVf 1 1 --

55 1 l SAMPLE -- -- -- -- --

CARBON .23% .22% .25% .20% .22%

MANGANESE .74 .71 .68 .89 .67 PHOSPHORUS .009 .009 .013 .014 .010 I SULFUR .013 .018 .029 .018 .014 SILICON .17 .13 .24 .15 .15

{ NICKEL .05 <.01 <.01 <.01 <.01 g CHROMIUM .06 .02 .09 .05 .02 MOLYBDENUM .08 <.01 .01 <.01 <.01 COPPER .03 .01 .02 .04 <.01 l,, NOTE A A B A A l

l I

L h

_ _ . - . . _ - , . _ ., , . . _ . , - _ , ..--.,e.-_ _

TABLE II - STAINLESS STEELS (Page 1 of 4)

(~

I I NCRf MTVf 1742 1

1742 3

1742 7-1 1742 2

1742 2

1831 SAMPLE B -- --

A -- --

CARBON .04% .07% .06% .04% .05% .04%

MANGANESE 1.65 1.31 1.64 1.22 1.03 1.07 PHOSPHORUS .024 .011 .015 .015 .021 .026 SULFUR .029 .019 .010 .006 .030 .030 SILICON .62 .77 .68 .63 .79 .78 NICKEL 8.46 9.13 8.12 9.44 8.87 8.93 CHROMIUM 19.04 18.61 18.81 19.26 18.46 19.06 I MOLYBDENUM .13 .34 .22 .26 .55 .55 COPPER .05 .22 .19 .11 .32 .34 NOTE G H G G H H NCRf 1871 2073 2176 2177 2376 2434 MTVf 1 3 -- --

11 --

SAMPLE -- -- -- Bin 48 __ Bin 21

' CARBON .06% .05% .07% .05% .05% .06%

~ MANGANESE 1.04 1.74 1.87 1.71 1.85 1.11 PHOSPHORUS .020 .014 .006 .022 .027 .018 ,

SULFUR .030 .014 .010 .012 .028 .029 l SILICON .78 .60 .58 .66 .43 .40 NICKEL 8.72 10.02 9.73 8.91 8.29 9.08  :

CHROMIUM 18.73 18.47 19.56 18.62 18.23 19.62 1 MOLYBDENUM .54 .29 .15 .34 .54 .52 l COPPER .32 .25 .13 .18 .36 .32 NOTE H G or I G H G H l

NCRf 2434 2511 2785A 2813 2813 2873 L MTVf --

2 3 1 1 7 l SAMPLE Bin 22 -- --

CV-10-4B CV-10-4D --

l CARBON .06% .05% .05% .04% .06% .05%

MANGANESE 1.03 1.79 1,74 1.58 1.60 1.38 PHOSPHORUS .019 .016 .024 .021 .013 .007 SULFUR .030 .027 .019 .029 .022 .014 l SILICON .79 .64 .58 .71 .36 .66

_ NICKEL 8.54 9.59 11.79 9.85 9.93 8.80 CHROMIUM 18.53 18.53 17.12 18.63 19.02 18.47 MOLYBDENUM .54 .30 2.16 .25 .29 .26 COPPER .31 .23 .28 .24 .30 .12 NOTE H G or I L G G I

- .r ~ - - , . - - - ~ ---, , - - - - ,, ,n a - -

.1 l

, TABLE II - STAINLESS STEELS '

(Page 2 of 4) i NCRf 2919 2919 2919 2919 2919 2919  !

MTVf 9 13 12 8 10 14 l SAMPLE -- -- -- -- -- -- l 1 CARBON .05% .05% .05% .06% .05% .06% l MANGANESE 1.64 1.64 1.61 1.63 1.65 1.65 i PHOSPHORUS .010 .011 .012 .011 .018 .019 '

SULFUR .011 .010 .010 .012 .006 .009 SILICON .66 .66 .64 .65 .52 .51 NICKEL 9.81 9.65 9.41 9.55 9.60 9.61

{ CHROMIUM 19.19 18.98 18.91 19.01 19.28 19.23 f MOLYBDENUM .23 .23 .23 .23 .23 .23 COPPER .11 .12 .11 .10 .10 .10 NOTE G G G G G G NCRf 2919 2930 2990 3027 3027 3126 I MTVf 15 --

6 9,15 9,15 5 SAMPLE -- -- --

1 2 --

CARBON .06% .05% .04% .04% .05% .06%

MANGANESE 1.66 1.63 1.79 1.44 1.42 1.55 PHOSPHORUS .015 .009 .022 .012 .015 .016 SULFUR .007 .018 .023 .013 .014 .025 SILICON .53 .65 .54 .67 .67 .70 NICKEL 9.56 9.49 8.73 9.31 9.20 8.28 CHROMIUM 19.26 18.98 18.75 19.07 18.89 18.64 MOLYBDENUM .23 .23 .46 .25 .26 .31 L COPPER .10 .10 .16 .14 .14 .14 NOTE G G H G or I G or I G l.

NCRf 3216 3221 3275 3291 3343 3465 Mi 7 4 2 1 1 1 SAMPLE -- -- -- -- -- --

CARBON .08% .04% .05% .06% .05% .06%

MANGANESE 1.40 1.28 1.02 1.36 1.81 1.86 L PHOSPHORUS .024 .019 .025 .016 .009 .027 SULFUR .030 .019 .030 .006 .007 .029 SILICON .64 .66 .75 .68 .25 .45 L NICKEL 9.07 8.98 8.64 8.36 9.90 8.42 CHROMIUM 18.46 18.85 18.44 18.77 19.94 18.37 MOLYBDENUM .41 .33 .56 .20 .16 .54 COPPER .26 .53 .31 .08 .09 .37 NOTE H M H G or K G G

-L m

- , ,w..- e -- -- -- - - , , - - , -

. \

.'. . TABLE II - STAINLESS STEELS l

~

(Page 3 of 4)

NCRf 3487 4055 4589 4756 4756 4756 MTVf 2 4 1 12 9 12 SAMPLE 68 I 90 95 CARBON .06% .057. .047. .057. .04% .04%

MANGANESE 1.62 1.66 1.26 1.25 1.29 1.31 PHOSPHORUS .013 .019 .019 .010 .025 .028 SULFUR .017 .019 .016 .009 .022 .023 SILICON .74 .72 .62 .68 .59 .69 NICKEL 9.42 9.33 9.83 9 37 9.88 10.13 CHROMIUM 18.31 18.67 18.58 19.05 18.56 18.75 I MOLYBDENUM .31 .34 .45 .13 .42 .37 COPPER .26 .27 .15 .05 .19 .14 NOTE G G G G G G i

NCRf 4756 4756 4756 4756 4756 4756 I MTVf 2 3 9 1 5 2 SAMPLE 76 110 93 109 111 127 CARBON lq g MANGANESE

.047.

1.29

.05%

1.26

.057.

1.27

.05%

1.23

.047.

1.25

.04%

1.31 PHOSPHORUS .027 .029 .030 .028 .029 .016 SULFUR .012 .029 .028 .026 .024 .014 SILICON .75 .71 .72 .75 .72 .69 NICKEL 9.15 10.01 10.22 10.11 10.01 9.37 CHROMIUM 18.54 18.22 18.30 18.40 18.24 18.91 MOLYBDENUM .26 .49 .49 .50 .49 .34 COPPER .16 .23 .25 .23 .23 .16 NOTE G G G G G G L

NCRf 4756 4757 4769 4824 4824 4824 MTVf 7 --

2 1 11 15 SAMPLE 112 -- -- -- -- --

CARBON .057. .06% .067. .047. .047. .047.

MANGANESE 1.28 1.56 .93 1.33 1.27 1.30  !

PHOSPHORUS .017 .017 .017 .007 .012 .015 SULFUR .030 .024 .017 .005 .010 .012 SILICON .69 .70 .71 .61 .63 .72 L NICKEL 10.23 8.46 8.66 9.29 9.38 9.30 l

CHROMIUM 18.79 18.59 18.49 18.84 19.29 19.07 l

MOLYBDENUM .48 .32 .29 .17 .23 .23 COPPER .22 .15 .20 .09 .19 .18 NOTE G G H G G G m

- - - , m,

i i

TABLE II - STAINLESS STEELS (Page 4 of 4) l f NCRf MTVf 4824 19 4824 9

4824 23 4824 17 4824 13 4824 21 SAMPLE -- -- -- -- -- --

.04% .04% .04% .04% .04% .047.

f CARBON MANGANESE 1.28 1.30 1.27 1.29 1.27 1.30 1 PHOSPHORUS .012 .014 .013 .012 .017 .012 l

[s SULFUR SILICON

.009

.64

.010

.65

.010

.68

.010

.65

.010

.74

.007

.66 l

NICKEL 9.18 9.19 9.10 9.20 9.10 9.34 CHROMIUM 18.93 19.03 18.84 18.99 18.57 19.14 I MOLYBDENUM .24 .24 .23 .24 .24 .24 COPPER .18 .17 .18 .19 .19 .19 NOTE G G G G G G

] NCRI 4873 4973 5226 5226 2177 5490 I MTVf -- -- -- -- --

1 SAMPLE 1 --

1 2 Bin 17 --

CARBON .05% .03% .04% .04% .06% .06%

MANGANESE 1.32 1.25 1.26 1.28 1.05 1.85 PHOSPHORUS .009 .011 .020 .021 .018 .027 i SULFUR .014 .028 .021 .019 .030 .015 SILICON .55 .73 .63 .63 .79 .18 NICKEL 9.06 12.64 9.93 9.82 8.69 8.55 CHROMIUM 19.71 16.60 18.78 18.78 18.78 19.34 l MOLYBDENUM .22 2.26 .45 .45 .54 .45 L COPPER .18 .46 .16 .15 .31 .27 NOTE G L G G G G L

L W

M

T A B L E III f TENSILE TEST RESULTS I f

NCR 1742 2071 2133 2183 MTV 7-1 2 3 A TENSILE 85,200 68,300 85,700 75,000 YIELD, .21 Offset 37,300 42,100 55,400 49,100 ELONGATION, in 2" 63 37.5 30 32.5 REQUIREMENTS G A A A SPECIMEN THICKNESS, in. .203 .264 .238 .213 I

NCR 2376 2873 3226 3291 I MTV 11 7 1 1 TENSILE 86,100 86,900 72,200 93,000 YIELD, .2% Offset 52,900 41,800 46,100 40,700 ELONGATION, in 2" 66 70.5 30 64.3 REQUIREMENTS G I A G or K SPECIMEN THICKNESS, in. .205 .210 .447 .723

(

NCR 3422 3433 3458 4079

l. MTV 6 17 --

1 TENSILE 66,900 68,800 72,500 82,700 YIELD, .2% Offset 35,500 47,500 53,300 53,600 ELONGATION, in 2" 31.5 30.5 30 35.5 REQUIREMENTS A A D A SPECIMEN THICKNESS, in. .538 .287 .250 .223 NCR 4527 4605 4756 4824 MTV 55 --

9 21 TENSILE 73,500 68,700 85,300 92,700 l YIELD, .2% Offset 48,000 42,900 34,900 41,400  !

ELONGATION, in 2" 35.5 30.5 64 65.5 '

REQUIREMENTS A A G G SPECIMEN, THICKNESS, in. .240 .367 .338 .111 L

\

^i F F F P " " " "

I i I"""

] 9 9 9 f TABLE IV a

SUMMARY

OF REQUIREMENTS .

NOTE A B C D F SPECIFICATION A106-75 A105-75a A36-75 A515-74b A516-74a CRADE or TYPE B -- --

65 65 or 70 (Plate up (1" dnd (1/2" and to 3/4") under) under)

CARBON, Max. .30 .35 .25 .28 .24 or .27 MANGANESE .29-1.06 .60-1.05 --

.90 max. .80-1.25 PHOSPHORUS, Max. .048 .040 .04 .035 .035 SULFUR, Max. .058 .050 .05 .04 .04 SILICON .10 min. .35 max. --

.13 .33 .13 .33

! TENSILE, ksi. 60.0 -- --

65.0-85.0 --

i YIELD, kai. 35.0 -- --

35.0 --

ELONGATION, in 2" 30 * -- --

23 --

1 1

i l

4

  • ASTM A106-75 allows a reduction in the Based on this information the i elongation minima for wall thickness following elongation minima less than 5/16" when strip tests are apply:

used. The minimum elongation, E, can

, be computed using the wall thickness, NCR E t, with the following equation:

2071 27.7 E=48t + 15.00 2 3 26.4 8

3433 28.8

4079 25.7

F F f"" F ~ = " - 4 I

, I i i i 9 **1 9 . i l C R O TABLE IV b

SUMMARY

OF REQUIREMENTS NOTE G H I

  • K or M L SPECIFICATION A312-74 A182-75 A376-75 A240-75a A182 GRADE or TYPE TP304 F304 TP304 304 F316 CARBON, Max. .08 .08 .08 .08 .08 MANGANESE, Max. 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 PHOSPHORUS, Max. .040 .040 .040 .045 .040 SULFUR, Max. .030 .030 .030 .030 .030
SILICON, Max. .75 1.00 .75 1.00 1.00 2

NICKEL 8.00-11.00 8.00-11.00 8.00-11.00 8.00-10.50 10.00-14.00 i CHROMIUM 18.00-20.00 18.00-20.00 18.00-20.00 18.00-20.00 16.00-18.00 MOLYBDENUM -- -- -- --

2.00- 3.00 4

TENSILE, Min. 75,000 --

75,000 75,000 --

YIELD, Min. 30,000 --

30,000 30,000 --

1 ELONGATION, Min. 35** --

35** 40 --

o ASTM A358-75 (Note K) refers to ASTM A240 Based on this information the for chemical and tensile requirements. following minima apply for i

these specimens:

C0 A reduction in the elongation minima are NCR E l permitted based on wall thickness below l 5/16" (.312") for strip test specimens. 1742 28.9 The minimum elongation, E, can be computed 2376 29.0 by the following equation:

Minimum for round specimens E-56t + 17.50 is 28% elongation.

t= wall thickness

l t . .

a i l Cal EglflGSFS 7530FrontageRoad a Skolue,phnors60077 e 1312676 2100 I

i TO: Sargent & Lundy Engineers 55 East Monroe Street Chicago, Illinois 60603 Report No.: 64188-la Date: 10/8/85 Your Order No.:

Attention: Mr. Gary Jones i i f

SUBJECT:

Bend Testing of a Sample Identified as NCR3291, Received October 3, 1985. j i TESTRESULTS:

(

i l Bend Testing:

A stainless steel sample identified as NCR3291 was subjected I to bend testing in accordance with the ASME Boiler and Pressure l Vessel Code,Section IX. The specimen was cut and machined in accordance with Figure QW462.2A. Bending was performed through 180 and over a diameter of 1-1/2". The weld metal was centered on the convex surface. .

Visual examination of the bent test spcimen revealed no indicat-ion of any cracks or other open defects. These results meet j the acceptance criteria of QW-163.

l i

J Respectfully submitted, e

TAUSSIG ASSOOATES. INC.

By -

Mark A. Hineman MAH:1c Senior Metallurgical Engineer

% , . m r ew - o.. .e .. a nw - i r.,o,. . = = = -o,,,-- =aa.r e . - ano w o,-,.

as nGu as tew - -- .- .. , of Fw tent an.enammameru Sam.ses ra cestroyed e resung we. De retane. for a mammurn of 30 days ww1s opwrwme speche .

__ . - . _ _ . . . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ , . . _ , , , . . _ . _ _ . _ _ _ , , _ . _ . _ _ __.

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20205M860&oldid=3020066"