Journal of Ship Production, Vol. 2, No. 3, Aug. 1986, pp.

145-162

High Strength Low Alloy Steels in Naval Construction

T. W. Montemarano,' B. P. Sack, 1 J. P. Gudas, 1 M. G. Vassilaros, 1 and H. H. Vanderveldt 2

The Naval Sea Systems Command has recently certified a lower-cost alternative steel to the HY-80
steel presently used in construction of naval surface ships. This alternative steel is based on the com-
mercial development of high strength low alloy (HSLA) steels originally directed to the offshore oil ex-
ploration platform and gas line transmission industries. The certification is a result of an ongoing re-
search and development program begun in 1980. This paper addresses several aspects of the HSLA
steel development effort, including a discussion of the properties and metallurgy of this steel, and the
cost savings which are achievable. Finally, the status of the current and planned Navy HSLA usage
and the R&D program is described.

Foreword The key advantage of the HSLA steels is their inherent

THE U.S. NAVY has always supported the development and
utilization of increasingly higher-strength steels for ship and
submarine construction. Steels such as HY-80, HY-100 and
HY-130 have been developed and the first two are presently
used extensively. The use of these steels and their weld-
ments in Navy vessels is directly related to their extraor-
dinary toughness, high strength and deformation perfor-
mance under high rate loading. The toughness and strength
achieved in the HY-series steels is obtained with the use of
relatively high amounts of alloying elements combined with
a quench-and-temper (Q&T) heat treatment. The result is a
martensitic steel structure which requires the use of strin-
gent welding process controls and specially designed filler
materials to retain adequate properties in the as-welded
condition.
HSLA steels have potentially the same (or better) strength
and toughness properties as HY-80 steel, but are obtained
by a combination of "clean" steel processing, carefully se-
lected small amounts of microalloying elements, and heat
treatments resulting in a ferritic, more easily welded mi-
crostructure. The microalloying of HSLA steels consists of
additions of small amounts (less than 0.15 weight percent)
of elements such as columbium, vanadium, titanium, alu-
minum, boron, and nitrogen which function in grain refine-
ment and precipitation hardening to increase strength and
toughness in a conventional carbon-manganese structural-
grade steel. Further increases are achieved with nominal
amounts of conventional alloying of copper, cobalt, nickel,
and molybdenum along with proper heat treatment. The
quantity, shape and size of inclusions are controlled, along
with refinement of microstructure transformation products
and grain size during rolling, as well as optimization of the
type and distribution of the strengthening precipitates. The
results are steels which, because of low carbon content, are
extremely weldable without the use of many of the stringent
process controls required for HY-80.
1David W. Taylor Naval Ship Research and Development Center, Be-
thesda, Maryland. (Captain Sack, USN, is currently Officer in Charge
of the DTNSRDC Carderock, Maryland Laboratory.)
2President, American Welding Institute, Knoxville, Tennessee; for-
merly, Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, D.C.
Presented at the September 25, 1984 meeting of the Chesapeake Sec-
tion of THE SOCIETY OF NAVALARCHITECTSAND MARINE ENGINEERS.
The opinions expressed herein are the views of the authors and not
necessarily those of the Department of the Navy or the American Weld-
ing Institute.
weldability and attendant lack of preheat requirement as
part of the welding process. Estimates of the reduction in
cost of welded ship structures are in the range of $0.40 to
$0.90 per pound, which projects to a total savings of $0.5 to
$2.0 billion over the next two decades.
Utilization of HSLA steels is presently restricted to a
thickness of 11/4 in. for structural applications and 3/4 in. for
fragmentation protection areas of surface ships only. Use in
other applications and in higher thicknesses is dependent
upon completion of remaining portions of the R&D program,
as is certification of HSLA for surface ship crack arrest
structure and rudder applications. The R&D program, which
addresses these applications and future developments of
HSLA steels, is discussed.
Introduction
The purpose of this paper is to describe the Navy program
for development and qualification of HSLA steels for use in
ship construction. Topics include a description of the devel-
opment of tough, high-strength Navy steels to provide an
historical perspective, discussion of how and why HSLA steels
are an improvement over current HY series steels, the re-
search and development program supporting HSLA steels,
and how and where such steels are being used now, and are
expected to be used in the future.
The U.S. Navy has always placed a premium on strong,
tough materials for seagoing vessels, setting performance
requirements considerably above those used for commercial
ships. In the late 1940's, HY-80, which is an 80 000-psi yield
strength quenched-and-tempered steel, was developed, and
beginning in the mid-1950's, was placed into Navy ship con-
struction in ever-increasing quantities [1,2]. 3 HY-80, along
with its higher strength partner, HY-100, have become the
standard materials for use in naval hulls where high strength
and toughness are required. However, the metallurgical
mechanisms which impart strength and toughness also re-
quire very strict process controls and costly welding proce-
dures to assure sound, crack-free welds due to the steel's sen-
sitivity to hydrogen-related cracking.
In the 1960's and early 1970's, driven by the needs in the
offshore structure and pipeline industries for very tough,
easily welded steels which could be fabricated and used in
very low temperatures, and supported by improvements in
the steelmaking industry for production of clean steels, the
3Numbers in brackets designate References at end of paper.

AUGUST 1986 8756-1417/86/0203-0145500.61/0 145

technology for significant improvements of ferritic steels ad-
vanced significantly. Originally used for general construc-
tion, ferritic steels have always been prized for their low cost
and high weldability, and HSLA steel developments even-
tually resulted in the production of steels suitable for Naval
ship construction.
Because the HY steels must be very carefully welded, and
must be preheated prior to welding, using HSLA steels which
require less stringent controls and potentially no preheat as
an alternative hull structural steel has significant cost-sav-
ings potential. Based on a net fabrication cost differential of
$0.40 to $0.90 per pound over HY-80 (derived from reduced
steel base cost and elimination of preheat), Navy shipbuild-
ing program costs can be reduced by $0.2 to $1.0 billion per
decade. Additionally, weight savings can be achieved by
substitution of HSLA steels for lower-strength high strength
steels (HSS), commonly called high tensile steel (HTS), since
smaller cross sections can be specified. Further, the weight
savings can be achieved with only an increase in the cost of
the steel plate itself, since fabrication of HSLA and HTS steels
is accomplished by essentially the same processes.
Therefore, in view of the cost- and weight-savings poten-
tial of HSLA steels, coupled with the experience base in both
the pipeline and oil drilling rig industries, the Naval Sea
Systems Command Research and Technology Directorate
initiated a program in 1980 and significantly expanded it in
1982 to develop, evaluate and certify these steels for ship
construction.
This paper first reviews the goals of the NAVSEA HSLA
steels research program, including a discussion of current
steels and projected gains from use of HSLA steels. The met-
allurgy of HSLA steels is then addressed, and the compo-
nents of the various tasks comprising the current research
and development effort are included. A detailed discussion
of the successful certification program which led to the in-
troduction of HSLA-80 steel in ship construction in 1984 is
presented. Finally, the future applications for such steels,
and research requirements, are discussed.
Goals of the HSLA program
The goal of the HSLA steels research and development
program is to reduce shipbuilding costs through improve-
ment of welding processes, materials, technologies, proce-
dures and techniques, while simultaneously improving qual-
ity, strength and toughness of hull steels. Specifically, there
are four generic problem areas which must be dealt with:
Welding is a high-cost, labor-intensive process.
The current and projected pool of skilled welders is in-
sufficient.
Higher strength materials require greater skill and tol-
erate fewer defects for sound welds.
Current high strength steels (HY-80/100) are costly to
procure and expensive to fabricate.
The welding of naval vessels, despite advances in auto-
mation and in weld processes in general, today remains a
very labor-intensive process. This is due principally to the
design requirements (watertight integrity, compartmenta-
tion, shock resistance, volumetric restrictions, etc.), many of
which tend to be unique (at least in degree) to Navy ships,
and the difficulty of using fully automated welding in the
majority of the ship's construction. Manual and semiauto-
matic welding require a considerable amount of training and
experience to produce high-quality welds, particularly with
hydrogen-sensitive steels. This problem becomes worse as we
move toward higher-strength materials such as HY-80, HY-
100 and eventually HY-130, since the welder's "operating
window" decreases for welding parameters (arc current,
146
voltage, angularity, preheat, heat input, etc.) and the inter-
action between the filler metal, the base metal and the weld-
ing flux or gas becomes more critical in order to produce the
required strength and toughness.
The lack of sufficient welders has been a documented fact
in naval shipyards for a number of years, and does not show
any signs of improving. Retention of Navy welders, espe-
cially those who are certified high pressure welders, is more
difficult because of the industrial demand for their skills.
Therefore, any steel which lends itself to lessened welding
parameter controls and still provides high-strength, high-
toughness and high-quality weldments addresses the first
three of these problem areas. Obviously, if welding is ac-
complished with fewer controls, costs are also potentially re-
duced. The commercial fabrication experience with HSLA
steels indicates, in fact, not only that the steel itself is cheaper
to buy, but that it does not require the same highly con-
trolled process to weld and, most important, does not require
preheat as part of the welding. These potential cost-reduc-
tion factors, combined with the potential for very high
strength and toughness through advanced metallurgical
processing, are the bases for the interest in development of
HSLA steels for ship construction.
Steels in naval construction
Materials in U.S. Navy combatants must meet a variety
of requirements principally associated with loadings, envi-
ronment and life-cycle maintenance. The ship system is sub-
jected to a complex spectrum of external and internal forces.
These include wave loadings, sea slap, slamming, vibration,
thermal excursions, cargo, buoyancy, aircraft landing, deck-
ing, and weapons [3]. Dynamic loading in the form of shock
waves must be considered when assessing materials perfor-
mance and fracture safety [4]. In addition to these applied
loads, built-in residual stresses due to fit-up and welding af-
fect structural integrity considerations [3-5].
The environment of ship operation provides extreme de-
mands on materials performance. The temperature extremes
associated with operation range from -30F to 120F [1].
Seawater exposure conditions include continuous full sub-
mergence, intermittent submergence, and splash and spray
exposure. Cathodic protection systems and corrosion control
coatings are employed to minimize the effects of the envi-
ronment, but corrosion fatigue, stress corrosion cracking and
hydrogen assisted cracking are key factors in design and
maintenance of Navy ships [3].
The fracture safety of Navy ships is addressed mainly
through the use of structural alloys selected from an ap-
proved list of tough materials that provide adequate toler-
ance to flaws ]4,5]. The current steels available for ship con-
struction include HTS, HY-80, and HY-100. Because HY-80
was the first of these steels to go beyond HTS-performance,
and has, in turn become a target for replacement, it is of
interest to briefly trace the history of HY-80.
The development of HY-80 steel began after World War
II as a higher-strength substitute for HTS steel. The latter
is a 52-ksi minimum yield carbon-manganese steel which is
still used in ship construction. The basis for HY-80 is ac-
tually an 1894-vintage Krupp armor steel [1] which was
characterized by use of nickel and chromium for strength
and toughness. Table 1 compares the chemical composition
of HTS and HY-80 steels. The' latter is a quench-and-temper
(Q&T) steel where the combination of alloying elements con-
tributes to a balance of strength against required toughness
levels. The strength is to a great extent realized from the
carbon level. The manganese (Mn) content is directed to con-
trol of sulfides in the plate, and molybdenum is used to min-
imize susceptibility to temper embrittlement. Nickel (Ni) is
JOURNAL OF SHIP PRODUCTION
 Table 1 Chemical composition of Navy steels

Composition, weight percent

C Mn P S Si Cr Ni Mo Cu Cb V
ASTM A710, 0.07 0.40- 0.025 0.025 0.40 0.60- 0.70- 0.15- 1.00- 0.02
Grade A max 0.70 max max max 0.90 1.00 0.25 1.30 min . . .
(HSLA-80)
HY-80 0.18 0.10- 0.025 0.025 0.15- 1.00- 2.00- 0.20- 0.26 0.03
max 0.40 max max 0.35 1.80 3.25 0.60 max ' ' " max
HY-100 0.12- 0.10- 0.025 0.025 0.15- 1.00- 2.25- 0.20- 0.25 (Ti) 0.03
0.20 0.40 max max 0.35 1.80 3.50 0.60 max 0.02 max
max
HY-130 0.12 0.60- 0.010 0.010 0.20- 0.40- 4.75- 0.30- 0.25- (Ti) 0.05-
max 0.90 max max 0.35 0.70 5.25 0.65 max 0.02 0.10
max
HTS 0.18 0.90- 0.04 0.04 0.10- 0.25 0.40 0.08 0.35 0.05 0.10
max 1.60 max max 0.50 max max max max max max

utilized to increase toughness. Both nickel and m o l y b d e n u m sumption by the Navy's shipbuilders over t h e next two de-
(Mo) are also used to increase hardenability in the Q&T steel. cades, broken down by alloy type and thickness range. The
The introduction of HY-80 steel b e g a n in 1951-52 with lower thickness r a n g e of 1/4 to 3/4 in. covers the ship classes
its use in the hull p l a t i n g of USS Albacore (AGSS569), and of small surface combatants (frigates, destroyers and cruis-
in 1952 in USS Forrestal (CVA-59) [2]. M i n i m a l welding ers) and selected a r e a s of u n d e r w a t e r vessels and carriers.
p r o b l e m s w e r e e n c o u n t e r e d , a n d a f t e r i t s u s e in U S S The next r a n g e of 7/8 to 11/8 in. has a lower usage, and the
Growler (SSG577) in 1953, widespread use of HY-80 as a r e m a i n i n g two thicknesses include c a r r i e r protection p l a t i n g
basic structural m a t e r i a l b e g a n in 1956. In 1958, and over and u n d e r w a t e r vessel applications. This totals approxi-
the next several years, due to cracks observed in w e l d m e n t s mately 270 000 tons of HY-80/100 per decade along with about
during construction, a series of fabrication controls was placed 600000 tons of HTS.
on the use of HY-80 to control such cracking. These included In using these tonnages to project the a m o u n t of H S L A
[2]: steel which could be used, it was felt overly optimistic to
(a) preparation, storage and issue of electrodes, project a 100 percent replacement. Therefore, we t a r g e t e d a
(b) p r e h e a t and i n t e r p a s s t e m p e r a t u r e , 50 percent r e p l a c e m e n t as being well w i t h i n t h e r e a l m of
(c) h e a t input, possibility. Obviously, however, the u s e a b i l i t y is h i g h l y de-
(d) welding sequence,
(e) w e a t h e r protection,
(f) nondestructive e x a m i n a t i o n (NDE) requirements,
(g) improved t r a i n i n g and qualification of welders, and Table 2 Typical HY-80/100 and HTS steels Navy ship construction
(h) minimization of h i g h l y constrained details. usage
These controls, which were h i g h l y successful in e l i m i n a t i n g
the evidence of weld defects discussed d u r i n g s u b m a r i n e Steel Usages
construction with HY-80 steel, are still in place today. They Ship Type HY-80, tons HY-100, tons HTS/MS a
provide the basis for the increased fabrication costs associ-
ated with this and other HY steels. Auxiliaries 99 not determined
Cruisers 707 0 "-1'22 2 725-3 500
Carriers 1496 21527 22 370
Destroyers 707 . . . 2 230-2 370
Projected gains for Navy use of HSLA steels Frigates 150 1 100
Amphibious 327-771 224 "-280 5 600-15 690
In order to project w h a t economic and other savings could Underwater vessels 1673-5 033 . . . 720-1270
be achieved by use of H S L A steels, d a t a g a t h e r e d by a NAV- aEstimated structural weight only for non-HY-80/100 steel.
SHIPSO Steel Plate Shipbuilding R e q u i r e m e n t s study con-
ducted in A u g u s t 1982 were utilized. Table 2 shows the re-
sults of this study for HY-80 and HY-100 as well as NAVSEA
nominal e s t i m a t e s of the HSS (HTS) steels used in m i l i t a r y Table 3 Projected HY-80/100 and HTS steel usage (tons) in Navy ship
vessels. construction
The use of HY steels has increased m a r k e d l y in the p a s t
ten years and is continuing to do so today. F o r example, in Thickness, in.
a typical cruiser hull form, historically about 707 tons of 1/4-3/4 7/s-11/8 11/4-21/4 23/8-6 Total
HY-80 was used. Today, the use of HY-80 (or e q u i v a l e n t
HSLA-80) is in the r a n g e of 1300 tons, done in order to re- 1983-1993
HY-80 65 300 12600 77000 33800 188700
duce displacement by replacement of the lower-strength HTS. HY-100 38700 4400 29600 23400 96100
This trend has driven welding costs up and p r e s e n t l y weld- HTS ... . . . . . . . . . 570000
ing is the largest single cost category in this ship construc- 1993-2002
tion, and can r a n g e from 10 to 20 percent of the total cost HY-80 62200 11700 61400 24500 159800
HY-100 350OO 4400 29600 23400 92400
of building the ship. HTS ... . . . . . . . . . 620000
When the ship class d a t a of Table 2 are combined w i t h Totals
the best e s t i m a t e of the Navy's shipbuilding program, the HY-80 348500 tons
projected HY steel and HTS usage is as given in Table 3. HY-100 188500 tons
HTS 1 190000 tons
Listed are the q u a n t i t i e s of these alloys projected for con-

AUGUST 1986 147

 Table 4 HSLA-HY steels projected fabrication cost comparison
Basis
as-fabricated HY-80/100 cost estimating thumb rule is $6-$7
per lb
base metal HSLA cost savings in range of $0.20-$0.50 per lb
HY-80/100 preheat costs $0.20-$0.40 per lb
net HSLA cost differential $0.40-$0.90 per lb or 5% to 15%
over HY-80/100
Ship class potential cost-saving3examples
cruiser (1200 tons HY-80 /4 in. max thickness)
$485 000-$1090 000 savings per ship if half HY-80 replaced
carrier (23 000 tons HY-80/100, 41/2 in. max thickness)
$9.2M to $20.7M savings per ship if half HY-80/100 replaced
Table 5 Projected weight reduction potential due to use of 80-ksi yield
strength steels in ship construction
Basis
80 ksi vice 55 ksi yield strength
all structural HTS replaced by 80-ksi steel
failure by buckling o f thinner sections not a problem
net weight reduction 10%-30% of HTS weight
Weight reduction examples
Cost Penalty
Ship Class Weight Reduction (tons) (A = $0.35/lb)
cruiser 270-810 $1908K
destroyer 220 -660 $1560K
pendent on the steel availability and the actual return cost
savings.
The projection of cost savings associated with HSLA steels
is shown simplistically in Table 4. The cost comparison is
based on a rule of thumb for the net fabrication costs of the
HY steels of $6 to $7 per pound. Within this total, based on
a recent study, the cost to preheat runs between $0.20 and
$0.40 per pound, calculated for a typical ship. This is a con-
servative number, as it includes only direct cost estimates,
and not the indirect productivity gains in terms of increased
welder efficiency when the interface between welders and
support trades is eliminated (since preheat is normally done
by electric strip heaters).
The procurement cost differential between the HY and
HSLA steels is historically in the range of $0.20 to $0.50
per pound, depending on market conditions and the type of
HSLA steel. Combining these results in a net HSLA cost
savings of $0.40 to $0.90 per pound, which is a cost differ-
ence of 5 to 15 percent below HY-80. It is important to note
that this does not include an estimate for other HSLA steel
advantages beyond material cost and preheat, which are re-
lated to the capability to easily weld the materials. These
include lessened nondestructive testing, the ability to weld
through paint primer, reduced requirement to NDT the back-
gouging of root passes, no necessity to grind off temporary
attachments instead of flush removal, and so on.
When projected for the entire ship, the potential cost sav-
ings are significant. For example, if only half of the 1200
tons of HY-80 (maximum thickness of 3/4 in.) used in a mod-
e m cruiser is replaced with HSLA steels, the savings range
from $500000 to $1.1 million per ship. For a carrier, using
23000 tons of HY-80/100, up to 41/,~ in. thick, the per copy
savings range from $9.2 to $20.7 million for replacement of
half the HY-80/100. If we are able to achieve an all-HSLA
steel ship, these savings double. Before going further, it should
be pointed out that at this time we do not have formal return
cost figures for HSLA usage in ship construction. However,
148
the current use of HSLA-80 steel in cruiser construction will
provide this information in the near future. Integration of
these cost savings based upon the projected HY-80/100 ton-
nages of Table 3 of 284000 in 1982-1993, and 252000 tons
in 1993-2002, the ship construction savings are substantial,
in the range of $200 to $500 million (half HY-80/100 re-
placed) to $400 to $1100 million (all HY-80/100 replaced)
per decade. This is sufficient to warrant a high-priority ef-
fort.
Another important benefit of HSLA steels introduction is
in weight reduction by replacement of the lower-strength HTS
(yield strength of 52 000 psi) with a steel which yields at
80 000 psi. As indicated above, this benefit is part of the rea-
son for the increase in HY-80 usage as weight becomes a
more important consideration. A rough estimate of the po-
tential for weight reduction with HY-80 and HSLA-80 steels
is illustrated by Table 5. The reduction in weight cannot be
determined simply by linear scaling, for example, by reduc-
ing the material cross-section proportionately to the in-
crease in yield strength. The decrease in weight is greatly
affected by the application, in which buckling, stiffness,
acoustics and other considerations must be included. There-
fore, a range of 10 to 30 percent is used. Nevertheless, the
potential is considerable. For example, in a cruiser, while
removal of 200 tons out of some 9000 tons total displace-
ment may not seem to be a large amount, it is much more
easily achieved than by equipment or hull form changes. It
is perhaps enough to provide future margin for additional
weapons systems or other shipboard improvements. As a
cheap 80000-psi yield strength material, HSLA-80 has also
caused a reexamination of naval ship design criteria, par-
ticularly as they relate to buckling and the manner in which
the yield strength is utilized.
As shown in Table 5, there is a cost penalty to pay for
weight reduction when removing HTS. The positive side of
this situation is that the cost penalty is much lower for HSLA
steels than it is for HY-80. This illustrates a need for more
inexpensive HSLA steels, which is the subject of part of the
HSLA R&D program and will also be discussed later.
With the potential gains described above, the HSLA Steels
Development Program has set as its implementation objec-
tive the replacement of HY-80 and HY-100 in ship construc-
tion with HSLA steels to the maximum extent possible as
soon as possible.
Metallurgy of HSLA steels
The development of HSLA steels for naval construction is
a manifestation of the increasing knowledge and sophisti-
cation developed by the metallurgical community in under-
standing the structure of steels. The HY-80/HY-100 steel
alloy system which was based on Krupp steel from the 1890's
still represents a combination of strength, toughness and
through-hardening which cannot be surpassed by any com-
mercially available steels. Metallurgically, the HY-steels and
the HSLA steel have fundamental differences even though
they share the same factors driving their development--
namely, strength, toughness and weldability. However, be-
cause of the development dates of the two alloy systems, the
final results are quite different. The HY steels were devel-
oped at a time when the only choices for structural steels
were C-Mn steels consisting of a pearlite microstructure with
yield strengths of about 40 ksi, and Q&T alloy steels pos-
sessing a martensite microstructure with yield strengths
greater than 75 ksi. Both of these steels used carbon as the
primary alloy addition for strength. During this period there
was an increase in the use of welding as a fabrication tech-
nique, which required weldable alloys to have reduced car-
bon levels. The requirements imposed by welding made it
JOURNAL OF SHIP PRODUCTION
impossible to have a high-strength structural steel with a
pearlite microstructure. The Q&T steel could still obtain 80
to 100 ksi with low carbon level (< 0.2 percent) with a tem-
pered martensite structure. The other alloying element in
HY steels, such as Ni, Cr, Mn, Mo, are needed to assure de-
velopment of the martensite in thick sections without any
loss of strength and toughness [6].
The pearlitic C-Mn steel with a yield strength of 36 ksi
was the industry standard for structural steel when high
strength was not required. However, commercial desires for
weldable structural steel with greater yield strength pres-
sured the metallurgical community to enhance the proper-
ties of C-Mn steel without any loss of weldability. This led
to the development of several new types of C-Mn steels of
bainite, acicular ferrite and reduced pearlite microstruc-
tures which we now commonly refer to as HSLA steels [7].
These new approaches to steelmaking had several common
features which emphasize microalloying and thermome-
chanical processing. The approaches generally use a C-Mn
steel with a reduced carbon level and property enhance-
ments resulting from the proper use of small amounts of ele-
ments such as vanadium, columbium, titanium and others.
HSLA steels are ferritic and/or pearlitic with fine grain size
and carbon levels below 0.15 percent. The three types of HSLA
steels of particular interest to the U.S. Navy are the con-
trolled-rolled steels, acicular-ferrite steels and the ultra-low
carbon bainitic steels.
The controlled-rolled steels have enhanced strength and
toughness compared with C-Mn steel, resulting from a re-
finement of the pearlite or ferrite grain size. This process
takes advantage of the recrystallization kinetics of steels re-
sulting from both deformation in the rolling mills and mi-
croalloying. Such steels are rolled at lower than normal hot
rolling temperatures and use vanadium or columbium carbo-
nitrides to suppress austenite grain growth while allowing
new austenite grain boundaries to form. This process can
produce steel with enhanced (smaller) grain size which can
increase strength and lower the ductile-to-brittle transition
temperature (DBTT) simultaneously [8]. This is a very cost-
effective way of producing a reduced pearlite or ferrite-pearlite
steel with yield strengths as high as 80 ksi and good tough-
ness. However, such a steel is difficult to produce in thick-
ness over 1/2 in. with a yield strength of 80 ksi and a DBTT
lower than -100F. Not only are the goals difficult to meet,
they may represent the metallurgical limit of such steel. Still,
for many commercial requirements such as bridges, offshore
structures, automobiles and commercial shipbuilding, these
steels provide excellent utility [9].
Another class of HSLA steel which uses microalloying is
the acicular-ferrite steels. These steels have low carbon lev-
els, generally 0.05 to 0.09 weight percent. Such steels can
generate yield strength over 80 ksi and have a very low DBTT
of less than - 100F. The best example of such a steel is ASTM
A710, which was developed by the International Nickel
Company as refinement of an earlier alloy system called
"Nicuage" [10,11]. The ASTM A710, now called "HSLA-80"
within the Navy, has C, Mn, Ni, Cr, Mo, Cu, Cb, and A1 as
alloying elements, many of which serve multiple purposes
in the alloy. The steel has low carbon (0.04 < C <0.08) for
good weldability, demonstrated by Fig. 1, which shows that
when a steel has less than 0.10%C, good weldability is more
easily achieved even with significant other alloying [9]. The
manganese addition serves to tie up sulfur and reduce the
formation of high-temperature transformation products such
as pearlite and polygonal ferrite. The manganese also can
provide solid solution strengthening to the ferrite. The cop-
per is used for precipitation strengthening, which occurs
during an aging process at approximately 1200F. The chro-
mium and molybdenum are employed to optimize the pre-
AUGUST 1986
0.40 I i I I
0.30
ZIz,I ZONE II ~Z
l-
Z
0 0.20
0
Z
0
m
0.10
(J
ZONE 1
A S T M A710 -'
0 1 1 1 1
0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70
C A R B O N EQUIVALENT = C + M n + S i + N i + C u + C r + M o + V
6 15 6
Fig. 1 Cold cracking susceptibility (weldability factor) of steels as a function of
carbon and alloy content
cipitation of the copper by suppressing the auto-aging pro-
cess. The nickel is needed to prevent "hot shortness" caused
by the copper and increase toughness. The aluminum is used
for deoxidizing and grain refining. And, finally, the colum-
bium is used to retard austenite grain growth. Such an alloy
makes a great deal of use of microalloying to produce ex-
cellent properties which can exceed those usually found in
HY-80 steel and which provide increased weldability.
Beyond the normal acicular-ferrite steels are the ultra-low
carbon bainitic (ULCB) steels. These steels have even lower
carbon levels of less than 0.05 percent, with high levels of
manganese (over 1 percent) and some boron. Such steels have
a very fine grain size and can produce strength and tough-
ness superior to many acicular-ferrite steels without the need
of a quench and aging process. These steels use aluminum
and titanium as a grain refiner and a deoxidizer to prevent
the boron from oxidizing [12]. The manganese and boron are
used to retard the formation of high-temperature transfor-
mation products such as pearlite and ferrite, allowing the
austenite to transfer to a fine lower bainite structure with
excellent strength and toughness.
HSLA steels R&D and certification p r o g r a m
summary
The primary emphasis of this paper is on the portion of
the HSLA steel program dealing with certification for ship
construction. However, the entire research and development
program will be briefly described as it is carefully inte-
grated for both near-term fleet implementation and longer-
term understanding and improvements in these steels for
maximum Navy benefit.
In fiscal year 1981, the Naval Sea Systems Command
(NAVSEA 05R25) initiated an exploratory development pro-
gram directed to high strength/low alloy steel systems. The
original tasks in this program addressed steels for light-
weight topside structures, and thick-plate high toughness
product for ship applications. The scope of the program was
expanded in 1982 when a new task was initiated to assess
HSLA steel options for destroyer construction. This led to
an effort to certify a steel for use in surface ship construction
by early 1984. Additionally, NAVSEA initiated a task to ad-
dress advanced thermomechanically processed HSLA steels
with an eye toward achieving increased toughness, im-
proved weldability and substantially reduced plate costs.
Figure 2 presents a road map which shows the phasing of
these efforts composing the High Strength Low Alloy Steels
149
 .SLA Steels for Lightweight;
Structures
Certiftcatlon of BSLA Steel
f o r DDCr-Sl C e r t i f i c a t i o n
316" < < 314"; Irs - 80
Then.o.=:h.=,~=.ll~ Proe,,ed I
HSLA Surface Ship Construction
3116" < t < 1" YS >
Thick P l a t e HSl~ Steel8
'Naval Application
1 < t < 4 80 < YS < lO0
O Iuitlste
Couplete
Fig. 2 Road map of tasks comprising the NAVSEA HSLA steels for naval construction program
for Naval Construction Program. While the scope of this pa-
per will not permit detailed discussion of results from these
development tasks, key results from all areas will be high-
lighted before going into more details of the certification ef-
fort.
Lightweight structures
As stated earlier, a key element in the HSLA steels pro-
gram is the reduction of ship structural weight. In address-
ing thin-section HSLA steels for incorporation into light-
weight structures, two steels were subjected to extensive
investigation. These both conformed to ASTM A715 speci-
fication and included 65-ksi yield fully annealed sheet (Re-
public MA-60) and hot-rolled 80-ksi yield Maxiform 80. Ex-
tensive corrosion and fatigue studies were conducted. Results
showed that fatigue performance was typical for alloy steels,
and the contribution of galvanizing to elevating the corro-
sion fatigue strength was quantified. Corrugated (truss) core
panels were successfully produced by resistance spot weld-
ing of MA-60 HSLA steel sheet (0.048-in. thick), Fig. 3. These
formed the basis for subsequent fatigue studies, and for
Fig. 3 Corrugated (truss) core panels of spot welded MA-60 HSLA steel sheet
150
=L ] I I .L I
(J~. . . . . . . . . . . . . ~.... ~ ]
] ] _ I ] I J
I I ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ] I
~ ~ . ~ _
I J I I I
] ~)- .......................
80 ] I J J I J I I
for ~ ~ I I J J J
~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
J J ~ J ~
producibility efforts to alternative component and fabrica-
tion designs for lightweight decking and deckhouse struc-
tures.
Thermomechanically processed HSLA
To meet the program objectives of further cost reduction
in plate procurement and fabrication, the thermomechani-
tally processed HSLA steels task is focused on the devel-
opment of metallurgical approaches and production concepts
to produce HSLA steels with minimum 80-ksi strength lev-
els in plate thicknesses compatible with the full range of
naval platforms. Controlled rolling, recrystallization con-
trolled-rolling and production of ultra-low carbon bainitic
steels are approaches being explored to improve the strength
and toughness available in HSLA steels. Controlled rolling
involves plate rolling in the intercritical region with per-
haps accelerated cooling to refine the ferrite grain size. Re-
crystallization controlled rolling (RCR) is a technique to pro-
duce fine equiaxed austenite grains which in turn produce
very fine ferritic grain size after transformation. RCR pro-
cessing is based upon achieving a very fine as-reheated aus-
tenite grain size by repeated deformation and recrystalli-
zation above the recrystallization temperature as a result of
processing and microalloying. A high, effective austenite in-
terfacial area, which increases the number of sites for ferrite
nucleation, is generated in this manner, leading to finer fer-
rite grain size (GS greater than ASTM 10) and resultant im-
proved strength and toughness. The primary incentive for
investigating this technique is that the same properties cur-
rently achieved only in thin gage or by severe controlled
rolling (that is, 80 ksi yield strength and a Charpy V-notch
toughness of 80 ft-lbs at -60F) can be achieved on lower-
power domestic mills using composition adjustment and
thermomechanical processing to condition the austenite prior
to transformation.
Ultra-low carbon bainitic (ULCB) steels rely on a fine
bainitic microstructure with a very low carbon content to
produce a steel of high strength and toughness in the as-
rolled condition. These steels commonly use boron to retard
the formation of grain boundary ferrite and manganese to
promote the formation of low-transition temperature ferrite.
Increased manganese levels allow the reduction of nickel
levels. Additionally, these alloys use TiN to retard austenite
JOURNAL OF SHIP PRODUCTION
 TEMPERATURE (dellrml C)
.,~ -50 2S 0 ZS 50
! 1 II ~ !
240 &
30
22O
O
2OO
8o 250
190

160
200 z
140 >.
m
120
160 w
I00 >
o REHEATED BELOW 1150t t,,)
iN} o / O T-L ORIENTATION 100
o / REHEATED AT 1250C
60 o O-- A L-T ORIENTATION
O O O T-L ORIENTATION
40 50
O o
2O
Go
o 1 I I ! !
.15o -120 -00 150
TEMPERATURE | ~ F)

Fig. 4 Charpy impact toughness transition curves for experimental high strength ULCB steel heat-
treated above and below the grain coarsening temperature

grain growth during hot rolling, thus developing a fine uni-
form grain size before transformation. Since titanium is far
more efficient than molybdenum in this effect, the molyb-
denum level can be greatly reduced. This treatment also ap-
pears to improve heat-affected zone (HAZ) performance by
minimizing the grain growth during thermal excursions. The
toughness behavior of these ULCB steels can produce a very
steep Charpy V-notch toughness transition curve as shown
in Fig. 4. It also appears that the transition temperature of
ULCB steel can be adversely affected by hot rolling above
the grain-coarsening temperature. This was demonstrated
at DTNSRDC with tests performed on an experimental plate
of ULCB steel which had been reheated and held at a tem-
perature of 1250C (2220F), which is 100C (180F) above
the grain-coarsening temperature. These fracture toughness
results, Fig. 4, indicate that the ductile-to-brittle transition
temperature is around room temperature. Also shown in this
figure are the impact toughness test results for the same
ULCB steel rolled below the 1150C (2040F) grain-coars-
ening temperature. These results indicate a very low tran-
sition temperature, below -70F. The higher-temperature
heat treatment also produced a prior austenite grain size of
110 ~Lm, whereas heating to less than ll00C produces an
austenite grain size of 16 to 18 ~Lm.
Thick-plate HSLA
Because HSLA steel metallurgy is very much production
process dependent, the achievement of high strength and high
toughness in thick-plate product presents the highest-risk
research objective, and potentially the highest payoff. Can-
didate thick plate HSLA steel plates of the following types
with yield strengths approaching 80 ksi were procured and
characterized: (1) controlled-rolled, C-Mn microalloyed plates;
(2) low-carbon Ni-Cr-Mo quenched-and-tempered acicular-
ferrite plate; (3) low-carbon Mn-Mo-Cb quenched-and-tem-
pered plate; and (4) low carbon, age hardening Ni-Cu-Cb plate.
The strength, impact and fracture toughness, and fatigue
properties of the steels were investigated. Testing for sea-
water corrosion properties, stress corrosion cracking suscep-
tibility, corrosion fatigue crack initiation and propagation
behavior of the alloys is currently in progress. The charac-
teristics of each HSLA type were compared with those for
HY-80, and HSLA types approaching the goals and mill
producibility were selected for characterization in 2-in.-thick
plate product.
Two candidate materials were selected for extensive char-
acterization: low-carbon Ni-Cu-Cb age hardening steel com-
mercially available under ASTM A710, Grade A, Class 3,
and low-carbon Mn-Mo-Cb Q&T steel commercially avail-
able as Lukens Steel ~QUEST" (ASTM A735 type). Plates
of both steels in 1-in. and 2-in. thicknesses were procured
for thorough characterization, including weldability and ex-
plosion bulge testing. A summary of mechanical property re-
sults on the candidate HSLA steels in the preceding discus-
sion is given in Table 6.
An investigation of the effect of flux composition on weld
metal microstructure for the submerged arc welding (SAW)
process using 3/4-in.-thick plates of ASTM A710, Grade A,
Class 3, and Lukens C-Mn-Mo-Cb "QUEST" as base metals
was initiated in the thick-plate task. The goal of the re-
search is the development of advanced welding consumables
for use in high-deposition-rate welding processes. The elec-
trode will be required to develop the strength toughness goals
in 2-in.-thick weldments deposited at high heat inputs (100
kJ/in, and above). Figure 5 shows results of an investiga-
tion of effects of welding wire and flux compositions in the
microstructure and properties of weld metal in C-Mn-Mo-Nb
plate.
HSLA-80 certification p r o g r a m
In August 1982 the Naval Sea Systems Command initi-
ated a formal program with the goal of certifying an 80-ksi
HSLA steel for use in destroyers and other surface ship con-
struction. The impetus for this task was the very promising
properties and approaches to production of high strength, high
toughness HSLA plate product developed in the thick-plate
development task outlined above. Simply stated, NAVSEA

AUGUST 1986 151

 Table 6 Summary of mechanical properties of thick-plate HSLA steels

I--Controlled-Rolled, Microalloyed HSLA Steel

A. Republic Steel Corp. X-80, 3/4 in. thickness
Composition: 0.23 C, 1.34 Mn, 0.014 P, 0.011 S, 0.20 Si, 0.13 V, 0.017 Cb.
Average Tensile Properties, Baseplate
YS (psi) UTS (psi) Elong. (%) Red. Area (%)
Longitudinal 75 500 104200 27 70
Transverse 77 900 105400 25 59
Average Charpy V-Notch Impact Properties (ft-lb)
RT 0OF -60OF -120OF
Longitudinal (L-T) 87 11 1 1
Transverse (T-L) 35 14 5 1
Average 5/8-in. Dynamic Tear Test Results (ft-lb)
RT 0OF
Longitudinal (L-T) 270 100
Transverse (T-L) 240 6O
II--Microalloyed, Low-Carbon Ni-Cr-Mo Steels, Quenched and Tempered
A. Climax Molybdenum Co. laboratory melt, rolled to 2-in.-thick plate, quenched and tempered at 1200F.
Composition: 0.056 C, 0.91 Mn, 0.12 Si, 2.90 Ni, 1.04 Cr, 0.72 Mo.
Average Tensile Properties
YS (psi) UTS (psi) Elong.(%) Red. Area (%)
Longitudinal 82 800 98 800 26 76
Average Charpy V-Notch Impact Properties (fl-lbs)
RT 0F -60F -120F
Longitudinal (L-T) 142 140 133 80
Transverse (T-L) 98 95 72 52
B. U.S. Steel Corp., laboratory plate, 2-in.-thick, Quenched and Tempered at 1250F
Composition: 0.09 C, 0.57 Mn, 0.004 P, 0.011 S, 0.33 Si, 1.07 Ni, 0.01 Cr, 0.31 Mo.
Average Tensile Properties
YS (psi) UTS (psi) Elong. (%) Red. Area (%)
Longitudinal 66 200 82 000 33 80
Transverse 66 200 82 400 32 78
Average Charpy V-Notch Impact Properties (ft-lb)
RT - 32F - 50OF - 80OF

Longitudinal (L-T) 217 169 160 186

Transverse (T-L) 137 139 138 128
Average 5~s-in. Dynamic Tear Test Results (ft-lb)
RT 0F
Longitudinal (L-T) 1645 1640
Transverse (T-L) 1280 920
III--Low-Carbon, Age Hardening Ni-Cu-Cb Steel
A. Armco Steel Corp., NI-COP production plate to ASTM A710, Grade A, Class 3, 1l/4 in. thickness
Composition: 0.04 C, 0.58 Mn, 0.010 P, 0.004 S, 0.30 Si, 0.68 Cr, 0.87 Ni, 0.19 Mo, 1.20 Cu, 0.046 Cb.
Average Tensile Properties, Baseplate
YS (psi) UTS (psi) Elong. (%) Red. Area (%)
Longitudinal 83 500 97 800 30 76
Transverse 82 800 97 900 30 77
Average Charpy V-Notch Impact Properties (ft-lbs)
RT 0F - 60F - 120F
Longitudinal (L-T) 199 199 202 100
Transverse (T-L) 181 187 164 107
Average 5/8-in. Dynamic Tear Test Results (ft-lb)
RT 0F -60F - 120F
Longitudinal (L-T) 1995 1988 550
Transverse (T-L) 1525 1543 "7()3' 147
IV--Low Carbon Mn-Mo-Cb Quenched and Tempered HSLA Steels
A. Climax Molybdenum Co. 1/z-in.-thick
l
plate produced by Nippon Steel Corp., Tokyo. The plate had been reheat-treated according
to a schedule develo,0Pedby Climax in a laboratory development effort: austenitize, quench, and temper at 1150F.
Composition: 0.06 ~, 1.92 Mn, 0.011 P, 0.003 S, 0.16 Si, 0.34 Mo, 0.03 Cb.
Average Tensile Properties
YS (psi) UTS (psi) Elong. (%) Red. Area (%)
Longitudinal 77 400 91000 26 78
Transverse 72 600 88 200 27 79
Average Charpy V-Notch Impact Properties (fl-lb)
RT 0F - 60OF - 120OF

Longitudinal (L-T) 203 202 140 67

Transverse (T-L) 212 182 131 92

(continued)

152 JOURNAL OF SHIP PRODUCTION

 Table 6 (cont~ued)

IV--Low Carbon Mn-Mo-Cb (continued)

Average 5~s-in. Dynamic Tear Test Results(ft-lb)
RT 0F - 60F - 120F
Longitudinal (L-T)
Transverse (T-L) '6i0' "520' "105" '5"5"
B. Lukens Steel Co. l'/2-in.-thick plate, produced in a past developmental effort. The plate was reheat-treated in the mill with no
additional reduction.
Composition: 0.08 C, 1.57 Mn, 0.018 P, 0.008 S, 0.20 Si, 0.21 Mo, 0.033 Cb.
Average Tensile Properties
YS (psi) UTS (psi) Elong. (%) Red. Area (%)
Longitudinal 72 000 86900 33 77
Transverse 69100 86300 32 74
Average Charpy V-Notch Impact Properties (ft-lb)
RT 0OF -60OF -120OF
Longitudinal (L-T) 215 194 171 148
Transverse (T-L) 160 161 132 84
Average 5~s-in. Dynamic Tear Test Results (ft-lb)
RT 0F -60F -120F
Longitudinal (L-T) 1710 1810 1225 430
Transverse (T-L) 1345 888 308 123

opted to accelerate efforts to identify and fully characterize
one 80-ksi HSLA steel to meet a very near-term application
deadline. The successful certification of HSLA-80, based on
the ASTM A710, Grade A, Class 3 steel system occurred in
February 1984 and provided Navy shipbuilders with the first
new steel of this class since the mid-1950's. This section of
the paper details the investigation and pertinent results which
led to the certification of HSLA-80 steel. The first step in
the certification process was the establishment of material
performance requirements for an 80-ksi HSLA steel to re-
place HY-80 in surface ship hull structural applications
(Table 13). These requirements fell into three categories: (1)
those where specific properties values must be met (such as
yield strength); (2) properties needed for design and struc-
tural assessment (such as Young's modulus); and (3) those
where equivalence to HY-80 must be demonstrated (such as
corrosion performance). The properties listed under the first
type are those which would be included in a material or fab-
rication specification. For a number of properties, demon-
strating HY-80 equivalence required evaluation of HY-80
along with the HSLA steel. In addition, since the primary
purpose for certifying an HSLA steel is to reduce the fab-
rication costs associated with 80-ksi yield strength steels,
there was a requirement to demonstrate that acceptable-
quality welds could be fabricated using lower-cost fabrica-
tion procedures (HSS welding procedures vice HY-80 pro-
cedures) while employing HY-80 qualified welding consum-
ables. Essentially this means that the preheat required for
HY-80 welding should not be required for the HSLA steel
welding.
The HSLA steel was chosen and certified based on the re-
sults of a feasibility study, a candidate screening effort, and
a detailed properties and weldability characterization. The
feasibility study identified three classes of HSLA steel which

0 6T C-Mn-Mo-Nb Plole
z I00 E ~ Ferrite
(.3 I Corbidl
b.I
O. ~! AI;oned
80 Carbide
w
~E
::D ~ Primgry
..J Ferrita
O
> 60
h- ~ Aciculor
Z Ferrile
hJ
40
u
D--
(/)
z
o
o 20
o
Q[
u
i i
i 0
TB TB TB TB
CSM ~, CSM *
Ti/MO Mo CSM
OP Co0 MgO SiOe OP OP OP

Fig. 5 Comparison of weld metal microstructures obtained with various flux compositions in
C-Mn-Mo-Nb steel plate

AUGUST 1986 153

had potential for m e e t i n g the s t r e n g t h and toughness goals,
and r e q u i r i n g m i n i m u m weld preheat. These steels included
(a) copper precipitation strengthened, (b) control rolled, and
(c) Mn-Mo-Cb quenched-and-tempered steels. All three classes
had in common t h e i r low carbon content for good weldabil-
ity. Tests of sample steels from each class showed t h a t the
Cu-strengthened steel based on ASTM-A710 G r a d e A could
Table 7 Mechanical and physical property requirements for certification
of 80-ksi HSLA steel plate for use in surface ship construction
1. Specific Property Requirements
a. Plate
--0.2% offset yield strength: 80 to 99.5 ksi;
--Elongation: 20% minimum in 2 in.;
--Charpy V toughness (plate thickness 1/2 in. or greater);
60 ft-lb at 0F;
35 ft-lb at -120F;
or
--Dynamic tear:
450 ft-lb at -40F
b. Weld Metal
--Yield strength: 82 to 94 ksi;
--Charpy V toughness (plate thickness 1/2 in. or greater);
60 ft-lb at 0 F;
35 ft-lb at -60F;
or
--Dynamic Tear (thick section welds):
425 ft-lb at +30F;
300 ft-lb at -20F.
2. Properties for NA VSEA Structural Assessment
Provide the following properties from measurements performed
on 3/4-in.-thick plate and SAW weld metal:
--Precision stress-strain curves;
--Elastic constants;
--Compressive strength;
--Shear strength;
--Dynamic stress-strain curves;
--CVN and DT transition curves (5/8- and 3/4-in. plate).
3. Equivalence to HY-80 Steel
Characterize the following properties to be used for structural as-
sessment and demonstrate equivalence to HY-80 steel. If necessary,
generate the HY-80 properties for comparison:
--Fracture toughness of 3/4- and 3/8-in. plate, 5/8-in. SAW weld
metal, and SAW HAZ;
--Fatigue and corrosion fatigue of plate ('/16-
3 to /4-in.
3 thick) and
weldments O/8-in. SAW and 3h~-in. GMAW-p). The tests are R
= -1, axial loading;
--Fatigue crack growth rates of 5/8-in. plate and 5/s-in. SAW weld
and SAW HAZ in air, seawater, and seawater with Zn ca-
thodic protection;
--General corrosion performance of plate;
--Crevice corrosion performance of plate;
--Stress corrosion with Zn level cathodic protection (bent beam
performance of :~h6-in. thick plate and precracked cantilever
beam tests of full section plate, SAW weld, and SAW HAZ);
--Paint adhesion performance of plate.
4. Weldability and Process Development
Establish welding procedure limitations using certified HY-80 weld
consumables by:
--Determining effect of cooling rate (heat input, thickness, pre-
heat) on strength and toughness using SAW, SMAW (MIL-11018
electrode), and GMAW or FCAW weld processes;
--Establish weldability including preheat/interpass tempera-
tures (30 to 450F) and heat inputs of interest, including ex-
tremes (approximately 30 to 75 kJ/in.). Include high restraint
tests of both HAZ and weld metal/HAZ system for suscepti-
bility to both hot and cold cracking;
--Evaluate repairability of HSLA by conducting misdrilled hole
and circular patch repairs;
--Determine strength and CVN toughness of HSLA/HTS and
HSLA/HY-80 welds.
Confirrff welding procedure limitations by conducting shipyard
producibility studies:
--Develop and qualify, as a minimum, an all-position fabrication
capability with SAW, SMAW (MIL-11018M), and GMAW-p or
FCAW processes;
--Fabricate and inspect structural producibility model which in-
corporates restrained joints. Use typical shipyard welding with
no preheat (ambient temperature);
--Qualify flame straightening procedures for HSLA-80 steel.
154
immediately meet the properties goals without requiring any
alloy development or modifications. Steels from the other
classes showed promise but required significant develop-
m e n t to meet the combination of the yield s t r e n g t h and low
t e m p e r a t u r e toughness goals.
Samples of 15 plates from 11 heats of the ASTM A710,
Grade A candidate steel were obtained and characterized to
determine the properties outlined in Table 7. A brief sum-
mary of the findings follows. A summary of the tensile prop-
erties of the plates by thickness is provided in Table 8. The
yield strength in all cases exceeded the 80-ksi minimum re-
quired. Plates in the thinner sections generally had greater
strength, in some cases exceeding 100 ksi.
The Charpy toughness transition curves of the 5/~_ and
a/4-in.-thick plates are shown in Figs. 6 and 7, respectively.
It can be seen that the curves fall into three groups. Class
1 h e a t - t r e a t e d (as rolled and precipitation hardened) plates
did not meet e i t h e r high- or l o w - t e m p e r a t u r e toughness re-
quirements. Class 3 heat-treated (solution treated, quenched,
and precipitation hardened) plates met both high- and low-
t e m p e r a t u r e toughness goals and exceeded 100 ft-lbs at
-120F, and Class 3 plates had l o w - t e m p e r a t u r e toughness
approximately equal to the r e q u i r e m e n t - - s o m e t i m e s pass-
ing and sometimes failing. Examination of the production
information of these plates along with that from subsequent
heats of m a t e r i a l pointed to some general t r e n d s for high
toughness. These include: carbon content < 0.044 percent;
sulfur <0.008 percent where plates with less than 0.004
percent have exceptional toughness; phosphorous <0.011
percent; aluminum < 0.05 percent; yield strength < 96 ksi.
Inclusion shape control treatment with calcium during melt-
ing was also found to be useful in improving low-tempera-
ture toughness, but in itself does not guarantee acceptable
properties. The findings led to the recommendations that
Class 3 heat treatment be required for plate thickness greater
than 5/i~ in., that sulfur and phosphorous be limited to 0.008
and 0.011 percent, respectively, and that inclusion shape
control by calcium injection be considered for maximum
toughness.
The fracture toughness of the ASTM A710, Grade A, Class
3 steel was compared with HY-80 using the technique of the
J-integral for ductile materials as detailed by ASTM E813-
81. The results of these tests, tabulated in Table 9 and plot-
ted in Fig. 8, show that the fracture toughness and tearing
modulus (resistance of a material to further crack extension)
of the candidate steel were at least as good as those for HY-
80 and in most cases much better.
The fatigue performance of the ASTM A710, Grade A, Class
3 steel was compared with that of the HY steels by perform-
Table 8 Summary of tensile properties of ASTM A710 Grade A steel
plate
Ultimate
0.2% Yield Tensile
Thickness, in. Strength, Strength, Elongation, Reduction
(No. of Plates) ksi ksi % in 2 in. in Area, %
3/4 to 11/4
average 88 101 30 74
range (4) 83-91 97-104 27-35 70-77
3/~ to 5/~
average 90 102 36 74
range (5) 81-97 94-108 24-40 67-77
3/1~ average 99 106 20 60
range (3) 93-106 99-114 18-22 52-69
JOURNAL OF SHIP PRODUCTION
 2. 'V----
~ '~ F2Z CCLASS 3)
2~'8 . . . . . . . . D GAll ( C L A S S S> I IO, 6 / I ~ . - I N C H PLATE B' I
~ , = GAI4 (CLASS 3, I . S , C . )
288 . . . . . . <> GCL (CLASS 3, I.S.C.)
-----0 FZO CLAS3 I ) r~ .,

t88
<>
168
&--
I'le

t2e ..."" /
188
..,43
o
s
4'
?
Se

68
/
/
/ "01

48 / NOTE, l.S.C. I N D I C A T E S
28
/ ~" O/ INCLUSION SHAPE CONTROL
/A ,.......D-."" - " 0 " " PLATE ~ P ~ C A T $ . ~
Jl
--0~ ~ 7-"
-15e -128 -9B - 6' 8 - 3' 8 e' 38' 68
, ~ V
a_ 168
, 218

T(MPERATURE Cdo~'e~ F)
Fig. 6 Charpy V-notch impact toughness versus test temperature for 5/s-in. ASTM A710 Grade A steel
plate

ing high- and low-cycle fatigue life (S-N) and fatigue crack
growth rate tests. The S - N tests were conducted under re-
versed loading in air and seawater. The crack growth rate
tests were conducted in air, in seawater, and in seawater
with zinc cathodic protection to assess the effects of hydro-
gen on crack growth. The results of the tests are shown in
Figs. 9 to 11. The S-N fatigue performance of both the ASTM
A710 and HY-80 plate in air or seawater is essentially the
same. The welded specimen data for the HSLA-80 are scat-
tered about the best-fit curve determined for HY-100 steel
(which showed similar scatter). Such scatter is typical for
welds since the individual specimen performance is primar-
ily dependent on the fine detail geometry of each weld toe.
The combined fatigue crack growth rate results in air for
specimens from four plates of ASTM A710 Gr A C1 3 steel
are compared with those from two HY-80 plates in Fig. 11.
Here it is seen that HSLA-80 performance encompasses the
range of performance observed for HY-80. The ASTM A710
results tended to group based on toughness. Those plates
which had high toughness (equal or greater than HY-80
specification) performed as well as the HY-80. Those with
lower toughness defined the higher growth rate side of the
scatterband. Such an apparent correlation of toughness with
fatigue crack growth rate performance is not expected and
the reasons for the plate scatter are being investigated. On
the other hand, the weldment results for both HY-80 and
ASTM A710 showed no such scatter and were tightly grouped.
In fact the best-fit lines shown for each alloy are similar for
all three environments tested. In this case both alloy weld-
ments performed better than plate, which is felt to be due

24e 'v
228 GAG CCLASS 3 )
n G~M (CLASS 3) b 3/4,..INCH PLATE D I
2ea 0 F'ZF (CLASS 3 ~, I.S.C.)
........ 0 F"ZY (CLASS | )
te~ Q PLATE SPECIFICATION
0
.A t68 O ~.~ O------- ~ --
/ 0
T
.,J
/
~ A f n
J
)- 121J
o
Z t88
b.l NOTE, I.S.C. INDICATES
INCLUSION SHAPE CONTRO
(J

- -* .... o-
I
- 158 - 128 -88 -68 8 38 68 m: 188 2t8
TEI'~EII~TIJRE Cdeerels F)

Fig. 7 Charpy V-notch impact toughness versus test temperature for 3/4-in. ASTM A710 Grade A steel
plate

AUGUST 1986 156

 Table 9 Summary of fracture toughness teat results of ASTM A71Q and weldments are shown in Fig. 12. These results were ob-
Grade A Class 3 and HY-80 st~ls plate and weldment$ tained on plate, weld metal, and weld heat-affected zones
using cantilever-beam specimens with fatigue precracks at
Thickness, Jx Tearing the test location. In addition, the specimens were exposed to
Alloy Identification in. fin -lb/in)) Modulus zinc levels of cathodic protection, since that is an actual ser-
ASTM A710 Grade A vice condition and is a severe condition to evaluate hydro-
FUQ i l/4 1889 151 gen-assisted SCC. The results show that KI~ under these
FZF 3/4 2243 127 conditions for HSLA-80 plate is approximately 93 to 98 ksi
GCM ~/r~ 1703 91 xlq~. compared with ~100 ksi lV~-~, for HY-80. ASTM A710
GAH ~/s 3397 162
GCL ~/,~ 1330 139 weld and HAZ values are in the range 93 to 113 ksi\ i/-i-i~n.
FZZ :A 1737 69 These are very high values, exceeding a K ~ to yield strength
FZZ, SAW, weld metal ~Is 1947 48 ratio of 1.0, which indicates excellent resistance to SCC. This
FZZ, SAW HAZ 5/~ 1393 55 resistance was confirmed by scanning electron microscopic
HY-80/database) 1 740 79 (SEM) examination of the fractured specimens. The exami-
HY-80 ~/~ 792 57 nation revealed no fractographic features which would in-
HY-80, SMA, weld 1 586 32 dicate SCC.
HY-80, GMA HAZ 3/~ 345 80 The weldability assessment and weld process development
phases of certification were of great significance. It was nec.
essary to determine and demonstrate that the ASTM A710,
to weld residual stress effects. The HSLA-80 welds per- Grade A, Class 3 steel was indeed significantly less suscep-
formed slightly better than the HY-80 welds, although the tible to hydrogen cold cracking, justifying the reduction of
difference is insignificant. the HY-80 weld preheat and other process controls. It was
Corrosion, stress corrosion cracking (SCC), and paint ad- also necessary to show that the alloy could be welded under
herence tests were conducted to assure that ASTM A710 Gr shipyard conditions using conventional HSS fabrication
A C1 3 steel will perform similar to HY-80 in the ocean en- practice and HY-80 qualified welding consumables. This phase
vironment. Since ASTM A710 is a low-carbon ferritic steel of the certification was performed as a number of tasks by
with a yield strength less than 100 ksi, there was no reason both DTNSRDC and two shipbuilders. The method of inves-
to expect anomalous behavior in seawater. This feeling was tigation used is outlined in Fig. 13. The laboratory effort
reinforced by previous long-term seawater exposures at LeQue included detailed studies of the effects of preheat tempera-
Center for Corrosion Technology (LCCT) and application of ture on the susceptibility of the weld HAZ to hydrogen
ASTM A710, Grade A steel in offshore structures. To con- cracking, the susceptibility of the alloy system to hot crack-
firm this and expand on tests performed by LCCT, the David ing, and the response of the alloy strength and toughness to
W. Taylor Naval Ship R&D Center conducted general cor- variations in welding conditions (weld cooling rate). The tasks
rosion, crevice corrosion, SCC, and paint adherence tests of at the shipyards included fabrication of highly restrained
both HY-80 and ASTM A710 steels. The results of the gen- weldability specimens under both typical and extreme weld-
eral corrasion, crevice corrosion, and paint adherence tests ing conditions, fabrication of weldments for mechanical
confirm that the two alloys behave in a similar manner; that properties tests, qualification of welding procedures for all
is, corrosion protection is required, there is no accelerated processes and positions, and construction of a large-scale
or preferential attack, and conventional paint systems cur- fabrication mockup. The mockup, weldabili~ specimens, and
rently in use will work equally well for both alloys. properties weldments were provided to DTNSRDC for eval-
The stress corrosion test results of ASTM A710 steel plate uation.

121|t~

I ttle~

1880

C
411el
.,o,.," "

i~bla

4.~lO 0.8~0 0.87a e.~lO O, IS8 e.iO~ 0,230

C~CK IZXTI]CS~O/ fn
Fig, a J-integral resistance curve test resu?ts for ASTM #,7'10 Grade A C~as~ 3 st~9~ plate, SAW weld~
ments, and HY-BD plate

156 JOUflHAt. OF SHIP PRODUC'I'ION

 ,2 n

HSLA PLATE
o ta I I / 4 " BENDING, AIR
0 5 / 8 " AXIAL, AIR
0
nO A 3 / 1 6 AXIAL, AIR
13 0 3/16 AXIAL, S.W.

L ,g

U ,
4

I
I0 .. ,,till ..... ,,11 ..... ,ill .... ,,,ll ..... ,,ll ''~ - . . . . ,,
2 34EmlB 2 S4EmlB 2 $4EmlB 2 34E1~ 2 34G8~ 2 $4RQm
2 3 4 E O 7 0
10 II II li 10 I0 li
CYCLI[:8 TO I"AZL.UP.[, N

Fig. 9 Results of fatigue tests of ASTM A710 Grade A steel plate

The weld cooling rate studies were used to relate the ef-
fects of the welding process variables (heat input, preheat/
interpass temperature, and plate thickness) to strength and
toughness properties of the weld metal and the HAZ. Figure
14 illustrates how the process variables can be combined into
a cooling rate. The results of the tests for the various pro-
cesses of gas metal arc welding (GMAW), submerged arc
welding (SAW), and shielded metal arc welding (SMAW)
showed that as long as the cooling rate was kept above 10F/
sec, acceptable properties would be obtained. This cooling
rate translates into actual welding practice outlined in Table
10, which shows the maximum heat input required to main-
tain a minimum 10F/sec cooling rate for thicknesses from
3/16 to 3/4 in. at various maximum interpass temperatures.
Also shown are the typical heat inputs used in construction.
It can be seen that for thicker plate which requires multi-
pass welding, a maximum interpass temperature of 450F
(the maximum allowed for HSS) would still result in ac-
ceptable properties. The thinner plates could not be welded
at such a high interpass temperature; however, there is no
practical need for such high heat in these small thicknesses.
These results confirm that ASTM A710 Gr A C1 3 steel can
be welded using typical shipbuilding processes and param-
eters.
Table 11 outlines the weldability tasks. It should be noted
that in addition to determining weldability using typical
shipyard procedures, the ASTM A710 Gr A C1 3 system was
tested to determine its weldability limits by using extreme
welding conditions (temperatures below freezing, mishan-
dled electrodes, improper heat inputs). The results of the im-
plant tests, Fig. 15, illustrate the difference between the sus-
ceptibility of the ASTM A710 and HY-80 HAZ to hydrogen
damage and delayed cracking. This test measures the time-
to-failure of a notched HAZ specimen loaded to various stress

so

46 m
J-ISLA WELD, RI
40 --
AIR S.W.
o 5/8"
"~ 0 A 3/t6"
30 --

28--

20 -- O~ O
O'~ eb ,-~
16 -- "' e - ~ - o.

IO -- t~3-
I/2" HY-I~ WELD~'~''""~

.... ,ill .... ,ill ..... ,ill ..... ,

s seTw 2 s 4 ~e~ 2 s 4 soTw 2 3 i;67m, o
6 6 7
II 18 18 18 18
Y Q . 8 1 o IrA3J.URE, N

Fig. 10 Results of fatigue tests of ASTM A710 Grade A steel weldments

AUGUST 1986 157

 The "Varestraint" test measures the hot cracking suscep-
7
5 ,/
!
tibility of an alloy. HY-80 steel is relatively immune to hot
cracking. A comparison of its hot cracking susceptibility, Fig.
3 II 16, with that of the HSLA steel shows that the latter steel
2 PLATE is even less susceptible than HY-80 to this type of cracking.
The results of the large-scale weldability tests are listed
in Table 12. Due to the large number of test conditions eval-
uated, only those specimens which exhibited cracking are
5 detailed. It can be seen that in all cases, cracking occurred
3 only when the alloy system was tested at an extreme con-
2 dition. For example, the 10018M electrode system cracked
in one test when the electrode was mishandled. In another

3
[/..o
2 not crack under any test condition when used to join ASTM
I -++
I / I I I I I I | I
2 s 4 seTog
let iii 2
S~E'SS ]}IR}ISI'I'Y FJ'T~ RAN~,AK I ~ i - ~
Fig. 11 Comparison of fatigue crack growth performance of ASTM A710 Grade
A plate, SAW weldment, and HY-80 plate, SAW weldment
levels. Degradation is assessed by comparing the highest
stress for no failure at 1000 min with the 0-time strength
(notched tensile strength). It can be seen that even using
specified electrode handling methods, the HY-80 HAZ is sig-
nificantly degraded when welded at 30F. Mishandling of the
electrode by exposure to the atmosphere for 9 hr further re-
duces the crack resistance of the HY-80 HAZ. The ASTM
A710 Gr A C1 3 steel, on the other hand, shows no degra-
dation even with mishandled electrodes, and can withstand
a stress almost twice that of HY-80 at 1000 min.
case, where proper electrode handling was used, cracking oc-
curred at temperatures less than 30F. It should also be noted
that the 10018M-1 electrode, which is a recently qualified
consumable developed for hydrogen cracking resistance, did
A710 Gr A C1 3 steel.
The final test performed was the fabrication of a large box
structure in a shipyard, with no preheat of ASTM A710 above
30F. The box contained typical ship joints and intersections,
HY-80 to HSLA steel intersections, predetermined repair lo-
cations (in very difficult areas such as corner intersections),
and built-in high-restraint weldability test sections (circular
I I I I I I !
patch and misdrilled hole repair). The model, Fig. 17, was
2 3 4 s6780 successfully fabricated and the predetermined repairs com-
183 pleted without cracking. After 100% nondestructive exami-
nation, the model was cut up and sections are currently
undergoing destructive testing.
As stated earlier, these results were reported to NAVSEA
in January 1984, and formal certification of the modified
ASTM A710, Grade A, Class 3 steel as HSLA-80 was pro-
mulgated in February 1984. The certification, which ad-
dressed plate thickness to l t / 4 in., precluded use of this steel
in the following applications:
(a) crack arrest structures,
(b) ballistic plating,
(c) torpedo side protection systems,
(d) nuclear spaces, and
(e) exterior surfaces subject to cavitation/erosion dam-
age.
Current research is being directed to each of these areas to

140

130
TESTED TN ATR
120
// HY-88 DATA CURVE

!
118
/
e t00
A
~p- 90
H
()
z
b,I
86

~ 70 Z~ A710. I-INCH PLATE

A7tO,, I-INCH SAW WELD METAL
A718, I-'rNCH SAW HAZ
uJ 00 0 A7t8, O.B-INCH SAW WELD METAL
1- D A710, 8.6--ZNCH SAW HAZ
50 t((- HY-8e, I-ZNCH PLATE
NOTEs OPEN SYMBOLS ZNDI"CATE POTENTZAL ( v s Ao/A<,CI )
40
OF -1888 mV, CLOSED SYHBOLS TNDICATE POTENTTAL
OF - 8 5 0 mV
t , , , ,,,,,I , , ,,,,,I , , , ,,,,,I . , , ,,,,,I i i i ..11

0 2 3 5 7188 2 3 8 7 2 3 6 7102 2 3 8 7 2 3 5 7104

jet t~
DURATZON C h o u r . )
Fig. 12 Results of precracked cantilever beam SCC tests of ASTM A710 Grade A Class 3 plate, SAW
weld, and HY-80 plate

158 JOURNAL OF SHIP PRODUCTION

 ESTABLISH LIMITS OF HEAT INPUT A N D PREHEAT/INTERPASS TEMPERATURE

WELD
COOLING RATE ING ~ .kq,~,~~" COOLING RATE FOR
REQUIRED PROPE~ TiES
EFFECTS + ~ '~zss (THICKNESS. HEAT INPUT
PREHEAT/INTERPASS)
TIME COOLINGRATE

WELDABILITY EFFECT OF PREHEAT (LAB' 32,75F, SHIPYARD 0:, 450F) A N D ~ PREHEAT REQUIREMENTS.
RESTRAINT ON HYDROGEN DAMAGE AND WELD CRACKING CRACK SENSITIVITY

IMPLANT CIRCULAR CRUCIFORM

(HYDROGEN PATCH (UNDERBEAD SHIPYARD PRO DUCIBILITY
DAMAGE) (RESTRAINT) CRACKING)

2 WELD PROCESS
SPEC F CAT ON

Fig. 13 Weldability and process development evaluation plan

produce experimental results which will allow complete re- in time to fully certify comparability between HY-80 and
placement of HY-80 in surface ship construction. HSLA steels.
With the completion of the surface ship structural certi-
HSLA steel applications, present and future fication for HSLA-80 in February 1984, expansion of the
steel's use occurred for cruisers, totaling approximately 1350
The fabrication advantages resulting from the foregoing tons per ship. Areas of use are as follows:
HSLA work and certification can be summarized in the fol- shell plating,
lowing comparison with HY-80: 01 level plating,
reduced heat-input and interpass restrictions,
no preheat required above 32F,
reduced inspection cost, SUBMERGED ARC WELDING FLAT POSITION
To = 125F 1116" ~t WELDING ELECTRODE
inspection/welding procedures same as for HTS using
approved HY-80 filler materials (per NAVSEA MIL-STD
1689), and 60~
forming/filler materials same as for HY-80 (per NAV-
SEA MIL-STD 1689).
The overall plan for implementation of HSLA steels into
ship construction is structured as shown generally in Table 50
13. The overall status in each area is as follows: (a) Certi-
fication for the near-term applications is complete with the
exception of a few very specific applications which were listed o=

above. (b) Certification work for midterm usages has begun, o= 4O

aimed particularly at the areas of underwater vessel non-
pressure hull, surface ship crack arrest and thick-section @
HSLA-80. (c) The R&D effort for the far-term applications uJ
continues with increased emphasis on higher strength and 3O
ferrite electrode development.
The more immediate uses of HSLA steels in current and Z
I.J
future ship classes are described below. HSLA steel was first o
authorized and used on a production basis in 1983 by Ingalls 8 20
Shipbuilding Division and by Bath Iron Works in cruiser
construction with about 250 tons replacing HY-80 in areas
which were designated as "noncritical." These include plat-
ing on the first and second platforms, main subdivision 10-
bulkheads, miscellaneous structural bulkheads and built-up
shapes in selected areas. Areas excluded are primary struc-
ture, tank boundaries and other '*wetted areas," structure
subjected to alternating stresses of 16 ksi or greater, foun- 3/16 3/8 518 314
dation structures and ballistic protection applications. The
PLATE THICKNESS (in.)
reason for these application restrictions is that the certifi-
cation program had not progressed sufficiently at that point

AUGUST 1986 159

 Table 10 Approximate maximum heat inputs to achieve a cooling rate m a i n deck plating,
of 10F/eac and realize required strength and toughness properties in lst/2nd platform plating,
SAW, SMAW, and GMAW weldments of ASTM A710 Grade A steel main subdivision bulkheads,
miscellaneous structural bulkheads,
Plate Preheat and Interpass Typical built-up shapes in selected areas,
Thickness, Temperature, F Heat Input foundation structures, and
in. 30 60 125 450 Range ballistic plating (up to 1.25 in. thick).
These details include about 36 600 linear feet of built-up Tee-
3/16 25 20 20 I <10 20-30 beams, ranging in size from 5 5 in. through 6 x 4 in. The
3/8 45 40 40 1 20 40-50 only areas of the ship from which HSLA-80 is excluded are
the rudder surfaces (since HSLA erosion/cavitation perfor-
5/s 75 65 60 35 I mance has not yet been established), crack arrest structure
45-55 (since certification is incomplete), and areas subjected to al-
3/4 90 85 80 45 I ternating stresses of 16 ksi or above.
boundary : f interpass It is of interest to digress at this point to m e n t i o n t h a t a
temperature three-ship procurement of HSLA-80 steel for cruisers at 1350
tons/ship was the first major purchase of this steel u s i n g a
specification which basically reflected HY-80 performance
requirements. It was also the largest steel mill production
run of HSLA-80 based upon the ASTM A710 specifications
(modified to meet Navy performance requirements). As it
turned out, about 15 percent of the several h u n d r e d plates
Table 11 Summary of weldability tasks to certify ASTM A710 Grade A rolled from the twenty-seven 50-ton heats produced for the
Class 3 steel for surface ship construction first ship did not meet the Charpy V-notch toughness re-
quirements at - 1 2 0 F (see Table 7). This was due to a com-
HAZ Tests bination of factors, such as an error in the order specifica-
cold cracking--implant tions themselves, the need for modifications to the steel
hot cracking--varestraint production practice, and the fact that the steel order was
Weldment Tests
Specimens --cruciform placed before the final MILSPEC was published for HSLA-
circular patch 80, which created some confusion over the property require-
e~hole ments. The ordering problem has been resolved, and pro-
restrained butt duction methods have been modified to include sulfide shape
Ingalls--extreme test conditions control, desulfurization, and more control of alloying ele-
30-450F preheat ments in the steel. As a result, the steels produced for the
35-78 kJ/in, heat input second and third ships, which were part of the same order,
9-hr electrode exposure meet or exceed all performance requirements for HSLA-80,
BIW--typical shipyard procedures
--natural low-temperature preheat (<30F) which are, of course, the same strength and toughness re-
DTNSRDC--evaluate results quired for HY-80. The MILSPEC for HSLA-80 has been pub-
--metallographic examination lished by NAVSEA as MIL-S-24645.
--hydrogen determination The second major combatant class which will utilize HSLA-
--expand test series
80 to a major extent is the new destroyer, which will begin

I M P L A N T DATA
150
ASTM A710 11018M ELECTRODE
140 EXPOSURE 9 HRS. AT 80/80
ASTM A710 11018M ELECTRODE
EXPOSURE 5 HRS AT 80/80
130 HY-80 11018M ELECTRODE
EXPOSURE 9 HRS. AT 80/80
120 HY-80 11018M ELECTRODE
EXPOSU RE 5 HRS AT 80/80 _NTS__FOR_A__STMA710 (113__K_Si)

!
110
u)
100
v
u)
(/) 90
IJJ
r,-
i- 80 " -
o~
70

60

50

40
tt
30 I J I I
10 0 101 10 2 10 3 10 4

TIME (MIN.)
Fig. 15 Results of SMA weld implant tests of ASTM A710 Grade A and HY-80 steels welded at 32F
with 32F interpass temperature

160 JOURNAL OF SHIP PRODUCTION

 300

250
J
z
m

2~
-r
I'-

~ 150
..J

re 100
_1 Fig. 17 Shipyard fabrication model of ASTM A710 Grade A Class 3 steel
<
I--
0
~- 50

fabrication from sheared and arc-welded plates, which is the

current practice.
.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 In 1983, a p r o g r a m was f o r m u l a t e d to fabricate, test and
% AUGMENTED STRAIN certify high-frequency (HF) welded Tee-beams. To date, three
production runs have been m a d e of 4 4 in. Tees in thick-
Fig. 16 Results of "Varestraint" testing of ASTM A710 Grade A Class 3 and
nesses of 1/8, 3/16 and 1/4 in. A p p r o x i m a t e l y 400 ft of each have
HY-80 steels
been r u n a t an average speed of 125 fpm. Testing will in-
clude t e a r and bend tests to assure t h a t the H F welds ex-
hibit equal or g r e a t e r s t r e n g t h t h a n the base m a t e r i a l s , a n d
are equivalent to those produced in the t r a d i t i o n a l sheared-
construction in FY86. While the ship utilizes a somewhat
and-welded Tees. F u r t h e r t e s t i n g will t h e n be conducted to
different hull form t h a n the cruisers, the use of HSLA-80 is
determine the comparative fatigue and shock performance
essentially the same.
of the H F and s h e a r e d / w e l d e d beams.
Authorization has been provided for use of HSLA-80 in
P a r t of the qualification work for this product has in-
carriers c u r r e n t l y u n d e r construction by Newport News
volved development of procedures for removal of the typical
Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Co. A t this time, only about 30
"flash," which occurs as a result of the forging pressure dur-
tons are included in each ship u n d e r the same restrictions
ing welding. For commercial applications, this f l a s h is not
as for the first cruisers. C u r r e n t l y being e v a l u a t e d is an-
considered to be d e t r i m e n t a l , since it does not a p p e a r to af-
other 3000 to 4000 tons.
fect b e a m mechanical properties. However, for m a r i n e ap-
plications, the flash creates a possible corrosion crevice which
H i g h - f r e q u e n c y w e l d i n g fabrication of HSLA-80 cannot be p a i n t e d properly, and a potential fatigue initia-
Tee-beams tion site. Therefore, a mechanical scarfing system was de-
signed by the b e a m producer, the Welded B e a m Company,
The certification of H S L A brings into the r e a l m of pos-
in Perry, Ohio, which has been used successfully in the pro-
sibility fabrication of Tee-beams by high-frequency welding,
duction of the test b e a m s described above.
a very economical method which has been commercially used
The initial e v a l u a t i o n on this product indicates a high
for other low-carbon steels for a n u m b e r of years, b u t which
probability t h a t H F welded beams will prove to have me-
cannot be used for the HY steels. The method produces beams
chanical properties at least equivalent to those of the s h e a r e d /
continuously at high speed from two coiled steel strips on a
welded Tees. The H F welds are full-penetration with an ex-
welding mill and employs high-frequency (400 kHz) welding
to produce forge-type welds. The sizes of Tees a v a i l a b l e have
3-in. to 12-in. stem h e i g h t s and 3-in. to 6-in. f l a n g e widths.
The process has the potential to replace the much more costly
Table 13 Projected HSLA steel utilization plan

Near-Term (1983/84)
Table 12 Summary of weldability test results
surface ship structural (destroyer/cruiser)
surface ship fragmentation
carrier structural (to 11/4 in.)
SMAW: (MIL-11018M) no cracking in any conditions except: Mid-Term
1-in. crack in keyhole at 60F, 9-hr electrode exposure surface ship crack arrester
cracks in restrained butt weld (<30F), 5-hr electrode carrier flight deck/structural
exposure underwater vehicle noncritical members
(MIL-10018M-1) no cracking in any condition thick section 80 ksi (up to 21/2 in.)
SAW: no cracking Far-Term
GMAW: no cracking except: thick section 80 ksi (above 21/2 in.)
4 keyhole specimen cracked at 30F/35 kJ/in, heat in- carrier thin section 100 ksi
put, no cracks at 30F/50 kJ/in. carrier thick section 100 ksi
FCAW: no cracking pressure hull

AUGUST 1986 161

tremely narrow heat-affected zone compared to the sub-
merged-arc welded sheared/welded beams, which are fab-
ricated with partial-penetration fillet welds. The principal
advantage of the method is one of economics, since the beams
can be produced over ten times faster than by the sheared/
welded method. For example, an entire ship set of beams
could be manufactured in only a few days.
It is anticipated at the time of writing that the evalua-
tions described above will be completed before the end of
1984, and will result in adaptation of the current ASTM
specifications for this product using HSLA-80.
Summary
The purpose of this paper was to describe the Navy HSLA
steel research and development program. The emphasis of
this research in the near term is directed to large-scale uti-
lization of such steels in surface ship construction. The eco-
nomic factors providing the impetus for use of HSLA steels
were detailed, and include principally the fabrication ad-
vantages inherent in welding low-carbon ferritic steels. A
short review of the HY-80 implementation history was pro-
vided to trace the origins of current shipyard practice and
set the basis for HSLA steels certification. The projected cost
savings were shown to be significant, even when developed
simplistically.
The metallurgy of HSLA steels was discussed in light of
the technology available during the HY steel development
and current steel technology. The potential of low-carbon
ferritic steel metallurgy to provide both strength and tough-
ness to meet Navy requirements, and provide a significant
fabrication advantage, was discussed. This was followed by
a review of the current HSLA steels exploratory and ad-
vanced development research programs. Here, both the short-
and long-term goals were emphasized, particularly from the
standpoint of improving properties in plate product that is
available over a broad range of thicknesses, and at even fur-
ther reduced cost.
The results of the recently completed program to certify
ASTM A710, Grade A, Class 3 steel as HSLA-80 were de-
tailed. The certification requirements were discussed, and
pertinent results related to mechanical properties, weldabil-
ity and structural performance were reviewed. These results
demonstrate at least equivalent performance with the HY-
80 steel system with substantially reduced weld process con-
trols.
Finally, a discussion of the current applications of the newly
certified HSLA-80 steel was presented. Here the key point
relates to the large-scale utilization of this steel in cruiser
and destroyer construction. Such utilization is currently
leading to realization of the cost savings projected for HSLA
steels.
As with any materials system, problems in using HSLA
steels will arise and require the attention of Navy metal-
lurgists. However, the technological clock has been ad-
vanced significantly with the application of low-carbon fer-
ritic steels in ship construction, and resolution of such
162
problems will be greatly eased by the inherently more fab-
ricable characteristics of these steels. The challenge ahead
is to maintain progress in the development of high strength,
high toughness, cheaper HSLA steels, and to continue to take
advantage of opportunities to insert up-to-date steel tech-
nology in U.S. Navy ship construction.
Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge the many research
participants who contributed results toward this paper. In
particular, the following employees of the David W. Taylor
Naval Ship R&D Center are recognized: R. T. Brenna, E. J.
Czyryca, T. E. Caton, D. A. Davis, R. L. McCaw, L. J. Rob-
erson, T. M. Scoonover, and R. J. Wong. The efforts of Dr.
Rich Fields and Dr. George Hicho (National Bureau of Stan-
dards) and Professor David Matlock (Colorado School of
Mines) are also due special recognition. Finally, the authors
acknowledge the very professional efforts of Ms. Carol Hart-
man in preparing this manuscript.
References
1 Heller, S. R., Fioriti, I., and Vasta, J., "An Evaluation of HY-80
Steel as a Structural Material for Submarines," Naval Engineers Jour-
nal, Feb. 1965, pp. 29-44.
2 Heller, S. R., Fioriti, I., and Vasta, J., "An Evaluation of HY-80
Steel as a Structural Material for Submarines," Naval Engineers Jour-
nal, April 1965, pp. 193-200.
3 Palermo, P. M., "An Overview of Structural Integrity Technol-
ogy," SNAME Ship Structure Symposium, Oct. 1975.
4 Palermo, P. M., "A Designer's View of Welding Requirements of
Advanced Ship Structures," Welding Journal, Dec. 1976, pp. 1039-1050.
5 Palermo, P. M., "Structural Integrity Criteria for Navy Hull Ma-
terials," Naval Engineers Journal, Oct. 1976, pp. 73-86.
6 Bain, E. C. and Paxton, H. W., Alloying Element in Steel, Amer-
ican Society for Metals, 1939.
7 Irvine, K. J., "The Development of High-Strength Structural
Steels," Strong Tough Structural Steels, Iron and Steel Institute, En-
gland, 1967.
8 Cordea, J. N., "Niobium- and Vanadium-Containing Steel for
Pressure Vessel Service," Welding Research Council Bulletin No. 203,
Feb. 1975.
9 Rothwell, A. B., "Weldability of HSLA Structural Steels," Metals
Progress, June 1977, pp. 43-50.
10 Hydrean, P. P. et al, "IN-787: An Age Hardenable Steel for Line
Pipe and General Structural Use," International Nickel Company Tech-
nical Report 775-T-OP, April 5, 1972.
11 Kelly, R. E., "Optimization of Mechanical Properties of 'IN-787'
Nickel-Copper-Columbium Age Hardenable Alloy," MSc. Thesis, Uni-
versity of Texas at El Paso, Aug. 28, 1974.
12 Nokasugi, H. et al, "Development of Controlled-Rolled Bainitic
Steel for Large Diameter Line Pipe," Proceedings, International Confer-
ence on Steel Rolling, Vol. 2, Tokyo, Sept. 29-Oct. 4, 1980.
Metric Conversion Factors
1 in. = 25,4mm
I ft = 0.3048m
1 Ib = 0 . 4 5 kg
1 psi = 6.895 kPa
1 ft-lb = 1.355 N.m
C = (F - 32) x 5/9
JOURNAL OF SHIP PRODUCTION