Max. Allowable temp. for 3.5 % Ni. product forms for ASME Section VIII Div. 1 Max.

allowable temp. for ASME Section VIII Div. 1, - For SA 203 Gr. D/E the max. 538 Deg C and for SA 333 Gr. 3 it is 343 Deg C. It is noted that temp. > 400 deg C, it falls under creep zone. What is the reason for such huge difference in temp. limits of plate and pipe material ? 13 days ago Like CommentFollow Flag More Shankaran Iyer likes this 9 comments

Follow Wesley (Wes) Wesley (Wes) Jacobs You could address a letter inquiry to the Secretary of the Section II committees asking your questions. You may not get an answer. I expect that a plate manufacturer has submitted tensile strength/temperature data that justifies the allowable stresses at temperatures higher than 343 C. 3.5% nickel steels are normally used for low temperature/near cryogenic applications, so the SA 203 allowable stress lines for temperatures higher than 343 C may not have any practical significance. 13 days ago Like

Follow JIGNESH JIGNESH RANA dear Wesley, thanks for feedback. But the point is basically the restriction of the same material, different product forms to the huge temp. difference ? this is not been observed for other materials by ASME . For sure, there is no restriction with respect to corrosion mechanism. yeah, 3.5 % Ni is used for low / cryo. applications. But my application is high temp. service ( @ 500 Deg C) , but the min. design temp. -39 Degc. Thinking for an alternate to Stain less steel . pl share your views. 12 days ago Like

Follow Wesley (Wes) Wesley (Wes) Jacobs Mr. Rana: You are getting into the metallurgical application consulting area. I expect that the high temperature service involves a hydro-carbon fluid that can auto-refrigerate when the vessel or processing system is depressurized, such that the coincident temperature at 0 gauge pressure is the minimum design temperature. If this is the case, you could consider using low

chrome-moly streels that are listed in Fig. UCS-66. Some if the listed steels have maximum application temperatures > 500 deg C. 12 days ago Like1

Follow Pradip. Pradip. Goswami Jignesh, SA 203 Gr D/E, i.e 3.5%nickel steels are designed for cyrogenic applications. They're never to be chosen for elevated temperature applications.

ASME Sec-II Part-D(2007) provides the stress values, example:- For SA 203 Gr E, -26.7 Ksi @ 100Deg F -2.5 Ksi @ 1000 Deg F Hence for such elevated temperature SA 203 Gr E is outrightly ruled out.

For the design temperature of 500 Deg C, the alternatives could :- either Austenitic S.S or Cr-Mo-V steels. My all means austenitc s.s would be easier to handle by the fabricators, though could be a bit expensive

It's not clear from your query how there could be two design temeperature , e.g 500 Deg C and -39 Deg C. Could you be more specific??

Thanks

Pradip Goswami,P.Eng.IWE Welding & Metallurgical Specialist Ontario, Canada. Email-pgoswami@sympatico.ca, pgoswami@quickclic.net

11 days ago Like2

Follow JIGNESH JIGNESH RANA Thanks pradip for the feedback.

the operating temp. is 500 Deg C and the plant is located in area, where the ambient temp. is -39 Deg C. ( extreme conditions.) You are right that such high temp. application Cr-Mo is best option. But will not be suitable option with low temp. side. Yes, S Steel is right material. But we were thinking a alternate to it. Actually from availability and fabrication point of view, A. Stainless Steel has upper edge.

Actually, the main topic for interest is not the alternate / replacement, but wide difference in the applicability of the same material with different product form in same code of construction. 11 days ago Like

Follow JIGNESH JIGNESH RANA Mr. Wesely, Thanks for the feedback. To me, it doesn't seem to be metallurgical problem. Otherwise , out rightly applicable to all product forms, instead of allowing plate material to be used upto 538 Deg c. Your feedback regarding submission of stress / temp. data seems to be logical to me. As suggested, i am thinking to send the inquiry to secretary for ASME Section II. 11 days ago Like

Follow Hartantyo Seto Hartantyo Seto Guntoro Mr Jignesh, In my opinion, maximum allowable temperature is also depend on Carbon Equivalent (CE) value in each material. Both material have different CE value. It doesnt mean if one alloy composition is same between two materials (let say 3.5% nickel) then the material properties are same. Since there are other variables to define each properties itself. Thats just my two cents. 9 days ago Like

Follow Pradip. Pradip. Goswami Hi Jignesh,

Your best bet would be austenitic stainless steels.Low alloy steels such as 3.5% Ni steels are extremely design proven for cryogenic applications,but not for higher temperature e.g 500 Deg C. Cr-Mo steels are proven for higher temperatures e.g 500 DegC , but for ambient as low as -39 Deg C ,they could be a suspect.Although it may happen that many of the Cr-Mo pressure boundary components may not experience such low ambient temperature , if well insulated. However during shutdowns things may be different??.

How's your luck with query to ASME. I'm in India now(till 12 Feb) and could be reached at 9830344095, should you like to discuss further.

Thanks

Pradip Goswami,P.Eng.IWE Welding & Metallurgical Specialist Ontario, Canada. Email-pgoswami@sympatico.ca, pgoswami@quickclic.net 18 hours ago Like

Follow JIGNESH JIGNESH RANA Thank you Mr.Pradip. I will be in touch with you.