Advances in Materials Technology for Fossil Power Plants Copyright © 2011 Electric Power Research Institute

Proceedings from the Sixth International Conference Distributed by ASM International®. All rights reserved.
August 31–September 3, 2010, Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA D. Gandy, J. Shingledecker, R. Viswanathan, editors
05319G

Weldability of EPRI P87

J.ȱA.ȱSiefert,ȱJ.ȱM.ȱTanzoshȱ
BabcockȱandȱWilcoxȱResearchȱCenterȱ
180ȱSouthȱVanȱBurenȱAve.ȱ
Barberton,ȱOH,ȱUSA,ȱ44203Ȭ0622ȱ
JASiefert@babcock.com,ȱJMTanzosh@babcock.comȱ
ȱ
J.P.ȱShingledeckerȱ
ElectricȱPowerȱResearchȱInstituteȱȱ
1300ȱWestȱWTȱHarrisȱBlvd.ȱ
Charlotte,ȱNC,ȱ28262Ȭ7097ȱ
jshingledecker@epri.comȱ

Abstract

Dissimilar metal welds (DMW's) between ferritic and austenitic materials at elevated
temperatures have concerned boiler manufacturers and operators for decades because of the
proven potential for premature failure. With the current trend toward ever higher pressures and
temperatures to achieve increased boiler efficiencies, it would be advantageous to have a
superior weld metal and joint design that would optimize economy of the newer boilers and help
avoid the use of austenitic materials for steam headers and piping. EPRI has developed a new
filler metal to improve the performance of DMW's, EPRI P87. Previously, work has been
reported on the development of EPRI P87 shielded metal arc welding electrode, gas-tungsten arc
welding fine-wire, and the utilization of EPRI P87 in an ultra-supercritical steam boiler built and
constructed by B&W. This paper discusses the weldability of EPRI P87 consumables using
various test methods such as varestraint testing (trans and spot), long-term creep testing (~10,000
hour running tests), procedure qualification records of tube to tube weldments between
traditional/ advanced austenitics and creep-strength enhanced ferritic steels, and elevated
temperature tensile testing. Finally, macros taken from the procedure qualification records were
examined using light microscopy to verify the weldability and elimination of cracking between
all possible material combinations. All these data show EPRI P87 is a weldable alloy which has
a number of advantages for use in DMW applications. The data also show that for specific weld
joint configurations, procedure qualifications may require the use of high-temperature tensile
data.

995
Introduction

The premature failure of dissimilar metal welds (DMW's) between austenitic stainless steels and
ferritic steel superheater/reheater tubes has its roots in the 1950s. These earliest, recorded cases
of premature failure in DMW's typically utilized stainless steel filler materials. In some cases,
failure was documented after just two years of service, forcing the power industry to adopt
nickel-base filler metals such as INCONEL1® Welding Electrode 132 and INCONEL® Welding
Electrode 182. Use of nickel-base filler metals continued through the next two decades until
failures again occurred, this time in the mid-1970s after (generally) 15-17 years of service [1].
Although nickel-base alloys showed 3-5 times improvement in life over stainless steel filler
metals, nickel-base alloys were still not meeting their desired design life [2]. Several
commissions and task groups were established to investigate DMW's. Among the intense DMW
research was an EPRI study that lasted throughout the 1980s. This comprehensive study resulted
in several key, DMW improvements: modified joint design, added weld reinforcement, and the
widespread use of ERNiCr-3. In addition to these conclusions, EPRI developed a filler material,
named “HFS6”, which showed immense promise in simultaneously eliminating the two issues
with DMW's: thermal expansion coefficient mismatch and carbon migration [2]. Unfortunately,
HFS6 had a tendency to microfissure and was never commercialized. Although the new
precautions and information obtained during the EPRI research made significant strides in
mitigating premature DMW failures, boiler OEMs and utilities continued to be concerned about
DMW's. This concern only increased as an increase in steam temperature and pressures has lead
to the use of ever-higher strength materials such as Grade 91/92 and advanced austenitic
stainless steels in modern supercritical and ultra supercritical (USC) power steam boilers.

After several years of research and development, initiating in 2002 and in conjunction with
Metrode Products Ltd., EPRI was successful in developing a suitable filler material for shielded
metal arc welding (SMAW) applications that showed good resistance to microfissuring [3]. The
newly-designed filler material was given the trade name “EPRI P87.” The revised chemistry,
based on HFS6, contained carbon and chromium levels that closely matched grade 91, which
virtually eliminated the carbon migration and depletion along the fusion line of the ferritic side
of DMW's. The SMAW electrode was first used commercially when B&W committed to using it
in the construction of its most-advanced (to date) ultra supercritical power plant in the United
States, American Electric Power’s John W. Turk Plant [4]. Following the successful employment
of the SMAW product, a solid wire product for use in gas tungsten arc welding (GTAW) and gas
metal arc welding (GMAW) applications was developed [5].

The American Welding Society defines “weldability” as “the capacity of a material to be welded
under fabrication conditions imposed into a specific, suitably designed structure and to perform
satisfactorily in the intended service [6].” To define the weldability of EPRI P87, several tests

1
INCONEL® is a registered trademark of the Special Metals Corporation family of companies.

996
were utilized to ensure the integrity of this alloy. In this study, the “capacity of EPRI P87 for
welding under fabrication conditions” was investigated using varestraint testing and an extensive
procedure qualification record (PQR) matrix GTAW and SMAW processes. To ensure
“satisfactory service performance”, cross-weld elevated tensile tests, all weld metal elevated
tensile tests, and stress-rupture tests were conducted.

Experimental Procedure

The base metal alloys used for the PQR evaluations are shown in Table 1. The as-deposited
chemistries of EPRI P87 are shown in Table 2, as compared to specification and target
chemistries. It should be noted that in the fine-wire chemistry, the Nb content was slightly higher
than the target chemistry. This slight variation in Nb did not present an issue during the
evaluation of the EPRI P87 fine wire product, and likely provided a worse-case scenario in
regards to testing the material for susceptibility to hot-cracking.

Table 1: Chemical Compositions of Base Metal Alloys Used in PQR Evaluations in

Report

Element Grade 91 Grade 92 304H Super 304H 347HFG 310HCbN

C 0.120 0.110 0.067 0.080 0.090 0.060
Si 0.363 0.410 0.269 0.320 0.380 0.390
Mn 0.412 0.470 1.662 0.820 0.145 1.130
P 0.020 0.017 0.033 0.029 0.023 0.015
S 0.009 0.004 0.001 <0.001 0.001 0.001
Ni 0.114 0.300 8.550 8.800 11.380 19.910
Cr 8.222 8.710 18.067 18.450 18.200 24.470
Mo 0.938 0.300 0.270 0.330
Cu 0.123 0.392 2.800
Al 0.007 0.006
Nb 0.076 0.077 0.520 0.900 (Nb+Ta) 0.045
N 0.035 0.053 0.110 0.024
V 0.206 0.207 <0.10
Co 0.130
W 1.858 <0.10
Ti 0.003
B 0.0014
Zr 0.010

997
 Table 2: Filler Materials used in PQR Evaluations in Report

Element EPRI P87 SMAW EPRI P87 SMAW Weld GTAW Weld
Range [7] Fine Wire Metal Deposit Metal Deposit
C 0.090-0.140 0.105 0.096 0.100
Si 0.05-0.25 0.155 0.365 0.160
Mn 1.2-1.8 1.440 1.209 1.410
P 0.01 <0.001 0.007 <0.005
S 0.01 0.001 0.008 0.002
Ni 54 max 45.89 45.29 42.66
Fe 38-42 39.68 40.08 42.93
Cr 8.5-9.5 8.800 9.223 9.250
Mo 1.8-2.2 1.970 2.334 1.930
Cu 0.027 0.036 0.018
Al 0.10-0.20 0.218 0.011 0.190
Nb 0.90-1.40 1.450 1.254 1.220
N 0.02 max 0.005 0.027 0.006
V 0.003 0.005 0.011
Ti 0.05 0.158 0.017 0.110
B 0.0005-0.002

Spot-varestraint and trans-varestraint tests were conducted on deposited, EPRI P87 weld metal.
Spot-varestraint testing is used to determine a material’s sensitivity to liquation cracking while
trans-varestraint testing determines a material’s sensitivity to solidification cracking. Two mild
steel plates, measuring 50 mm (2.0 in) thick, 508 mm (20.0 in) in length and 127 mm (5.0 in)
wide were buttered with EPRI P87 using the GTAW process to ensure little to no dilution from
the base metal plates. These plates were then beveled and welded using previously-developed,
GTAW thick-section welding procedures [5]. A cross-section of the finished weldment is shown
in Figure 1. The schematic shown in Figure 2 summarizes the obtained results using the
varestraint method, as well as significant data points. Testing was performed from 0.25 to 7%
augmented strain. At each strain level, the number of cracks and the maximum crack distance
(MCD) was determined.

Figure 1. Cross-section of EPRI P87 Weldment Evaluated for Hot-Cracking

Susceptibility [8]

998
Figure 2. Schematic Illustrating the MCD Induced as a Function of Applied Augmented
Strain [8]

Tube-to-tube PQR's were welded in the 1G position and auto-rotated using either the manual
GTAW process or a combination of manual GTAW root and SMAW fill. The tube dimensions
consisted of a ~50 mm (2.0 in) outside diameter (OD) tube, a ~7.6 mm (0.300 in) wall thickness
(WT), and were beveled with a 37.5° angle. Sixteen material combinations were welded, shown
in Table 3. These various combinations provided an inherent and thorough weldability
investigation for EPRI P87. Following welding, the tube-to-tube combinations were post-weld
heat treated (PWHT) to the specification for grade 91 (ASME, Section I, Table PW-39) at 746°C
(1375°F) for one hour [9]. Cross-weld side bend tests and tensile tests were conducted in
accordance with ASME Section IX, Welding and Brazing Qualifications [10]. It should be
mentioned that ASME Section IX allows four side bend tests to be substituted in material
thicknesses greater than 9.5 mm (0.375 in). Side bend tests were chosen for this case (even
though the WT was less than 9.5 mm), because it was believed that a side bend test may more
effective in revealing possible microfissuring in the weld metal than either a root or face bend
test. These tube-tube combinations will still be referred to as PQR's even though they are
technically not PQR's per ASME Section IX.

999
 Table 3: PQR Matrix of Materials Welded with EPRI P87
Process Austenitic-side Ferritic-side
Grade 91
GTAW only
Grade 92
304H
Grade 91
GTAW root, SMAW fill
Grade 92
Grade 91
GTAW only
Grade 92
347HFG
Grade 91
GTAW root, SMAW fill
Grade 92
Grade 91
GTAW only
Grade 92
Super 304H
Grade 91
GTAW root, SMAW fill
Grade 92
Grade 91
GTAW only
Grade 92
310HCbN
Grade 91
GTAW root, SMAW fill
Grade 92

Cross-weld elevated temperature tensile specimens were performed at 55.6°C (100°F)

increments in the anticipated, DMW temperature range of 800-1200°F. Tensile tests were
machined to diameter (dia)=6.35 mm (0.250 in) and a gauge length (GL)=25.4 mm (1.0 in).
These results were compared to base metal minimums for each particular dissimilar metal
weldment combination.

All weld metal tensile specimens, using the same dimensions above, were tested for EPRI P87
SMAW and EPRI P87 GTAW deposits at elevated temperature. Tensile testing was conducted in
the tempered condition as EPRI P87 will be put into service in the tempered condition when the
ferritic material is either Grade 91 or Grade 92. The EPRI P87 SMAW, following PWHT at
746°C (1375°F) for two hours, was tested at 20, 93, 204°C (70, 200, 400°F) and at 55.6°C
(100°F) increments from 316-760°C (600-1400°F). The EPRI P87 GTAW, following PWHT at
746°C (1375°F) for four hours, was tested at 482, 593 and 704°C (900, 1100, 1300°F). The
results for both deposits were compared to values for INCONEL Filler Metal 82 and
INCONEL® Welding Electrode 182.

Cross-weld stress-rupture tests were conducted on specimens with a GL=57.2 mm (2.25 in) and
a dia=12.8 mm (0.505 in). The centerline of the gauge corresponded with the centerline of both
the GTAW and GMAW-P plates. The welding of the GTAW and GMAW-P plates was
described in a previous paper [5]. All weld metal creep and creep-rupture tests were also
extracted from GTAW and GMAW-P plates; the all weld metal creep specimens had a GL=35.6
mm (1.4 in) and dia=8.9 mm (0.35 in). For all tests, specimens were removed a minimum of 6.4
mm (0.25 in) above the root due to minor root cracking observed in the GTAW weld root area.
Creep testing and elevated temperature tensile testing was performed in accordance with ASTM
E21 and E139.

1000
Results

Weldability: Hot-cracking Susceptibility Using Varestraint Method

The trans-varestraint and spot-varestraint results for GTAW-deposited EPRI P87 weld metal are
compared to ERNiCr-3 in Figures 3 and 4. The ERNiCr-3 data represents a range of maximum
crack distances (MCD) for a given strain based on several production heats. Important data
points, such as the threshold strain level and saturated strain level are shown in the charts. The
results of trans-varestraint testing of deposited EPRI 87 welding wire are shown in Figure 3. The
average MCD for the deposited weld metal was 0.85mm.

Figure 3. Trans-varestraint Results for Susceptibility to Solidification Cracking [8]

The results of spot-varestraint testing of weld metal deposited with EPRI 87 using the GTAW
process are shown in Figure 4. The average MCD for the deposited weld metal was 0.65 mm.

1001
 Figure 4. Spot-Varestraint Results for Susceptibility to Liquation Cracking [8]

Weldability: Procedure Qualification Records

The tensile test results are shown in Figures 5 and 6. Figure 5 shows the ultimate tensile strength
(UTS) for all Grade 91 PQR combinations and Figure 6 shows the UTS for all Grade 92 PQR
combinations. The line in each set of two tensile tests represents base metal minimum tensile
value for weakest material in that particular PQR weldment. The ASME minimum allowable
UTS for each material in increasing order is: 304H (517 MPa, 75 ksi), 347HFG (552 MPa, 80
ksi), Super 304H (586 MPa, 85 ksi), Grade 91 (586 MPa, 85 ksi), Grade 92 (621 MPa, 90 ksi)
and 310HCbN (655 MPa, 95 ksi). In only two tensile tests (out of 32 total) did the UTS of the
weldment not meet the base metal minimum allowable UTS, indicated in each Figure.

Figure 5. Grade 91 PQR Tensile Test Values

1002
 Figure 6. Grade 92 PQR Tensile Test Values
Bend tests are only shown for the Grade 92 to 310HCbN weldment as this combination had the
highest overall material strength combination, Figure 7. No issues, in regards to microfissuring,
were evident in side bend tests for any of the PQR combinations. Furthermore, mounted macro
samples for each PQR did not reveal cracking in either the weld metal or HAZ.

Figure 7. Grade 92-310HCbN PQR Bend Tests; GTAW on Left, SMAW on Right

Elevated temperature tensile tests were run at 55.6°C (100°F) intervals between 427-649°C (800-
1200°F). Weld metal failures were recorded in certain instances, especially in the 427°C (800°F)
tests (7 instances) and less frequently at 482°C (900°F, 3 instances), Table 4. In the ten tests

1003
where the failure was in the EPRI P87 weld metal, only two samples recorded a UTS that was
less than the projected, minimum UTS of the base material. One of these two samples may have
failed prematurely due to an apparent LOF defect in the fracture face, indicated by a white arrow
in Figure 8. In the 482-649°C (900-1200°F) regime, the strength of the ferritic base metal clearly
controlled the strength of the cross-weld tensile test. A typical, ferritic base metal failure is
shown in Figure 9.

Table 4: Elevated Temperature Tensile Test Failures in EPRI P87

Ferritic Austenitic Test Temp.(°C, °F) Process Comments/Notes

347HFG 427, 800 GTAW UTS well above 347HFG min.
Super 304H 427, 800 GTAW UTS at Super 304H min.
T91
UTS = 96.3% of T91 min. Lack of fusion indication
310HCbN 427, 800 GTAW
on fracture face may have caused premature failure.
427, 800 GTAW UTS well above 347HFG min.
347HFG
482, 900 GTAW UTS well above 347HFG min.
427, 800 GTAW UTS above Super 304H min.
Super 304H
482, 900 GTAW UTS above Super 304H min.
T92 427, 800 GTAW UTS = 97.3% of T92 min.
UTS at T92 min. Lack of fusion indication on fracture
310HCbN 482, 900 GTAW
face might have caused premature failure.
427, 800 SMA UTS above min. for both T92 and 310HCbN
W

Figure 8. LOF Defect in Fracture Face of T91-310HCbN Tensile Test at 427°C (800°F)

Figure 9. Tensile Test Failure in T91 of Cross-weld Test for GTAW, T91-304H, 649°C
(1200°F)

1004
Figures 10-13 show the elevated temperature tensile tests for each tube-tube combination. In
each chart, there is a minimum line for the ferritic and austenitic base material (obtained from
several sources) and data for the GTAW and SMAW process. In every case, the SMAW process
was stronger than the GTAW process. It was clear that at temperatures above 482°C (900°F), in
the temperature range typical for Grade 91/92 DMW operating temperatures, the EPRI P87 was
stronger than the weakest material in a given, DMW combination.

(a) (b)

Figure 10. Cross-weld Ultimate Tensile Strength (UTS) for T91-304H (a) and T92-304H
(b) Weldments Using EPRI P87 and GTAW and SMAW Processes [11, 12]

(a) (b)

Figure 11. Cross-weld Ultimate Tensile Strength (UTS) for T91-347HFG (a) and T92-
347HFG (b) Weldments Using EPRI P87 and GTAW and SMAW Processes [12, 13]

1005
 (a) (b)

Figure 12. Cross-weld Ultimate Tensile Strength (UTS) for T91-Super 304H (a) and T92-
Super 304H (b) Weldments Using EPRI P87 and GTAW and SMAW Processes [12, 14]

(a) (b)

Figure 13. Cross-weld Ultimate Tensile Strength (UTS) for T91-310HCbN (a) and T92-
310HCbN (b) Weldments Using EPRI P87 and GTAW and SMAW Processes [12, 15]

Mechanical Testing: Elevated tensile and creep testing

All weld metal, elevated temperature yield strength and ultimate tensile strength results are
shown in Figures 14 and 15 for EPRI P87, INCONEL® Filler Metal 82 and INCONEL®
Welding Electrode 182. The EPRI P87 SMAW contains data from 20-760°C (70-1400°F). The
EPRI P87 GTAW data was only tested at 482, 593 and 704°C (900, 1100, 1300°F). The
INCONEL® Filler Metal 82 and INCONEL® welding electrode 182 data points were
reproduced from charts in [16]. Although the EPRI P87 data are clearly weaker in regards to the
ultimate tensile strength, this trend was reversed in creep-rupture tests, Figure 16 and 17.

1006
Figure 14. All Weld Metal Elevated Temperature Ultimate Tensile Strength Comparison
[16]

Figure 15. All Weld Metal Elevated Temperature Yield Strength Comparison [16]

Creep-rupture testing is ongoing with longer-duration tests estimated to have rupture lives
between 10,000 and 30,000 hours. The rupture results for the EPRI P87 all weld metal tests are
compared to reported, average rupture strength data for INCONEL® Filler Metal 82 (ERNiCr-3)
using the Larson-Miller parameter (LMP) and a polynomial fit, Figure 16 [3, 16, 17]. The EPRI
P87 creep tests include the original SMAW development data, more recent SMAW data and the
ongoing GTAW/GMAW data. From this plot, it is clear that EPRI P87 at least equals the
strength of INCONEL® Filler Metal 82, and the slope of the line suggests this difference in

1007
strength will be greater at lower, more service-relevant stress values. Furthermore, the recent
SMAW data for EPRI P87 suggests an even higher strength than either the SMAW development
or GTAW/GMAW data. This could be attributed to the fact that the recent SMAW data was
tested in the as-welded condition, whereas the GTAW/GMAW data was in the PWHT condition
(per Grade 91 specification).

Figure 16. LMP versus Stress for EPRI P87 Compared to Reported Average Strength of
ERNiCr-3 [3, 16, 17]

Figure 17 compares NIMS data for T91 and T92 to EPRI P87 using a LMP plot and a
polynomial fit [3, 17-19]. This comparison is particularly revealing, as these two CSEF steels, at
elevated temperature, would be the weakest material in the highest strength DMW combinations
evaluated in the PQR's. From this chart, it is clear that EPRI P87 is acceptable, with respect to
creep strength, in any T91 or T92 DMW combination.

1008
Figure 17. LMP versus Stress for Completed and Ongoing (arrows) EPRI P87 Compared
to Reported Grade 91/92 P87 SMAW All Weld Data, and the Original P87 Development
Data [3, 17-19]

Discussion

The weldability issues with the original chemistry, HFS6, were well-documented and attributed
to microfissuring (liquation cracking in the weld metal). Because of this, it was critical to use
standardized testing to examine EPRI P87 and confirm the weld pad build-up studies which
showed the EPRI P87 did not exhibit the same tendencies as HSF6 [3]. In the trans-varestraint
testing, EPRI P87 displayed an almost identical behavior to the minimum range for ERNiCr-3.
This indicated that EPRI P87 has good resistance to solidification cracking. In the spot-
varestraint testing, the threshold strain for EPRI P87 was comparable to the maximum range for
ERNiCr-3, and the saturated strain for EPRI P87 was higher than that of the ERNiCr-3
maximum range. These results indicated that EPRI P87 is more susceptible to microfissuring
than ERNiCr-3; this result was likely influenced by the fact that the Nb level in the tested EPRI
P87 chemistry was slightly above the aim chemistry range. Despite the fact that EPRI P87
revealed a higher susceptibility to liquation cracking, previous research investigations of GTAW
and GMAW thick section weldments did not reveal a single microfissure [6]. Additional
investigations using circular patch testing and pad build-ups further showed that EPRI P87 is at
least as good as ERNiCr-3 in cracking susceptibility [5].

The second weldability issue investigated was that of room temperature tensile values, and as
they related to ASME Section IX. The excerpt below, from ASME Section IX QW-153, describes
acceptance criteria for tensile tests [10]:

1009
QW-153.1 Tensile Strength…. In order to pass the tension tests, the specimen shall have a
tensile strength that is not less than:
(a) The minimum specified tensile strength of the base metal; or
(b) The minimum specified tensile strength of the weaker of the two, if the base metals of
different minimum tensile strengths are used; or
(c) The minimum specified tensile strength of the weld metal when the applicable Section
provides for the use of weld metal having lower room temperature strength than the base
metal;
(d) If the specimen breaks in the base metal outside of the weld or weld interface, the test
shall be accepted as meeting the requirements, provided the strength is not more than 5%
below the minimum specified tensile strength of the base metal.

From this excerpt, it was fairly clear that EPRI P87 must meet the base metal minimum strength
of the weakest base material in the DMW combination. Even though only two tests (out of 32)
failed below the lower of the two base materials, the weldments made in the lab for this matrix
were likely more representative of a very high quality weld versus a more realistic, difficult, out-
of-position weld. Thus, it is not unreasonable to expect difficulty in passing PQR's where the
lowest base metal strength in the DMW combination (i.e. 347HFG) is comparable to the
Euroweld, reported minimum UTS of EPRI P87 of 81 ksi [7]. In qualifying the PQR's for AEP-
Turk, B&W proved that it would be difficult, especially in the case of the Grade 91 and 347HFG
DMW combinations. In light of this, part (c) in QW-153.1 provides an alternative option for
qualification. The applicable Section, in this case, is ASME Section I, PW-5.4 [9]:

PW-5.4: Welding electrodes and filler metal shall be selected to provide deposited weld metal of
chemical composition and mechanical properties compatible with the materials to be joined and
the service conditions anticipated.

This excerpt from Section I may provide the needed justification to substitute elevated
temperature tensile tests at the anticipated operating temperature in place of room temperature
tensile tests. To support this, cross-weld tensile tests were conducted at 800-1200°F. This testing
illustrated the point that using a relatively simple short-term and inexpensive test, like an
elevated tensile test, should be sufficient to qualify EPRI P87 in any DMW combination,
especially if the room temperature tensile tests do not meet the base material minimum
requirement.

The 800°F tensile tests showed that in the highest strength material combinations, EPRI P87 will
have difficulty meeting the projected, minimum tensile test at this temperature. However, 800°F
is likely much lower than future DMW operating temperatures, especially for higher temperature
supercritical and ultra supercritical power plants. Even if a DMW at 800°F is utilized in a future
design, the ferritic material of choice would likely either be Grade 22 or a lower-grade material
like Grade 11. In this case, EPRI P87 would easily qualify the existing Section IX PQR tensile
test at room temperature. The same holds true for a DMW operating at 900°F, where a handful of
additional weld metal failures below the base metal minimum for EPRI P87 were noted.

1010
In temperatures above 900°F, where it is necessary to utilize higher strength and corrosion-
resistant ferritic steels (i.e. Grades 91/92), it was clearly evident that EPRI P87 had the necessary
strength to pass an elevated temperature tensile test. The all weld metal tensile data indicated
that EPRI P87 had comparable strength to conventional nickel-base alloy consumables, and the
extensive creep testing presented in this paper further proves this point. At very long times and
low stresses, the difference in strength with regard to creep was noticeable.

Cross-weld creep tests, much like the elevated temperature tensile tests, showed that the strength
was strictly controlled by the ferritic material [3, 5]. Guidance still needs to be established
whether a set of two elevated tensile tests, substituted for the room temperature tensile tests,
would be run at the highest, estimated design temperature of the DMW or at the highest,
estimated steam temperature. Because of the temperature gradient in the through-wall thickness
of the DMW, there could be a significant difference in these two temperatures. Further note that
the Code, in light of the data presented here and due to the vague wording in PW-5.4, could also
chose not to adopt new rules for EPRI P87, but instead find this data sufficient to justify a room
temperature PQR tensile test which does not meet the base metal minimum. Regardless,
approving the use of EPRI P87 for future, high-strength material combinations is currently under
way within B&W.

Conclusions

EPRI P87, welded between the most common austenitic boiler tubing (304H, 316H, 321H,
347H) and ferritic boiler tubing today (Grades 22, 91, 92), poses little or no issue in passing
PQR's that are conducted according to existing Section IX rules. Future plant designs promise to
utilize ever increasing temperatures and pressures where it will be advantageous to exploit
higher strength and corrosion-resistant materials like Grade 92, 347HFG, Super 304H and
310HCbN, among others [20]. The data presented within this paper makes a case for a welding
material, EPRI P87, which promises to increase the life of DMW's despite not possessing the
prerequisite room temperature tensile strength. Based on the data presented in this paper, it is
clear that EPRI P87 is acceptable for use in a multitude of possible DMW's combinations
utilizing Grade 91/92 and austenitic stainless steels. In summary:

1. EPRI P87 is comparable to ERNiCr-3 in liquation and solidification cracking

susceptibility, as verified using the varestraint method.
2. EPRI P87 can pass existing ASME code qualifications for joints between traditional
stainless materials (304H and 347H) and CSEF steels (Grade 91/92).
3. Passing PQR's where a DMW utilizes an advanced austenitic stainless steel (Super 304H
and 310HCbN) and Grade 91/92 may present some difficulty.
4. Cross-weld, elevated tensile tests showed that EPRI P87 had difficulty in meeting the
projected, minimum base metal strength at 800°F for the highest strength DMW's.
5. Cross-weld, elevated tensile tests showed that EPRI P87 had adequate strength above
900°F for all DMW combinations.
6. All-weld, elevated tensile tests showed that EPRI P87 had slightly lower ultimate tensile
strength than INCONEL® Welding Electrode 182 and INCONEL® Filler Metal 82.

1011
 7. All-weld, elevated tensile tests showed that EPRI P87 had slightly higher yield strength
than INCONEL® Welding Electrode 182 and INCONEL® Filler Metal 82.
8. Creep data (completed on on-going) for EPRI P87 SMAW, GTAW and GMAW weld
metal shows it is equivalent and potentially stronger than ERNiCr-3. Longer duration tests
are still ongoing.
9. The creep strength of EPRI P87 is more than adequate for Grade 91/92 DMW's.

Acknowledgements

A portion of this research was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Fossil
Energy. The support and guidance of the U.S. DOE/OCDO Advanced Ultrasupercritical Steam
Boiler Consortium, Robert Romanowsky, Patricia Rawls, Mario Marrocco, Robert Purgert, and
Vis Viswanathan is greatly appreciated.

References

1. Li, C. C. and Ryder, R. H., “Service Performance of Dissimilar Metal Weldments in

Fossil-fired Boilers.” Proceedings of the EPRI Workshop on Failures and NDE of Boiler
Tubes, April 13-15, 1983, Bal Harbour, FL.
2. Roberts, D. I., Ryder, R. H., Thurgood, B. E. and Viswanathan, R. “Improved Dissimilar
Welds for Superheater and Reheater Tubes.” International Conference on Advances in
Material Technology for Fossil Power Plants, Sept 1-3, 1987, Chicago, IL.
3. Development of a New Nickel Filler for Dissimilar Metal Welds and Repair. EPRI, Palo
Alto, CA: 2009. 1018991.
4. Coleman, K. and Hainsworth, J. “Improved Filler Metal Enables Higher-Temperature
Dissimilar Metal Welds,” Power Magazine, July 2009.
5. W. F. Newell, J. M. Sanders, J. P. Shingledecker, J. A. Siefert, and J. M. Tanzosh.
“Development of EPRI P87 Solid Wire,” WELDS 2009, Fort Myers, FL (June 2009) .
6. Baeslack, W. A. and Lippold, J. C. “WE610 – Introduction to Welding Metallurgy,” The
Ohio State University Welding Engineering Class Notes, 2006.
7. “EPRI P87 Product Data Sheet,” Euroweld Data Sheet Publication, 2006, pp. 1.
8. Evaluation of Cracking Susceptibility of Weld Metal Deposited with EPRI P87 GTAW
Welding Wire. Columbus, OH: Edison Welding Institute, November 2009. 51998CSP.
9. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code: An Internationally Recognized Code, Section I,
PW-5.4, 2007 Edition. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, NY,
2007.
10. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code: An Internationally Recognized Code, Section
IX, QW-153, 2001 Edition. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, NY,
2002.
11. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code: An Internationally Recognized Code, Section
II, Part D, Properties, Table 1A, 2009b Edition. American Society of Mechanical
Engineers, New York, NY, 2009.
12. Private Correspondence with Martin Prager.
13. “DMV 347HFG Product Data Sheet,” Salzgitter Mannesmann Stainless Tubes
Publication, 2006, pp. 17.

1012
14. “DMV 304HCu Product Data Sheet,” Salzgitter Mannesmann Stainless Tubes
Publication, 2006, pp. 15.
15. “DMV 310N Product Data Sheet,” Salzgitter Mannesmann Stainless Tubes Publication,
2006, pp. 16.
16. “INCONEL® alloy 600 Product Data Sheet,” Special Metals Corporation, September
2008, pp. 14-15.
17. Coleman, K. and Gandy, D.. “Alternative Filler Materials for DMW’s Involving P91
Materials,” Advances in Materials Technology for Fossil Power Plants. ASM
International, 2008, USA, pp. 940-967.
18. Data Sheets on the Elevated-Temperature Properties of 9Cr-1Mo-V-Nb Steel Tubes for
Boilers and Heat Exchangers (ASME SA-213/SA-213M Grade T91) and 9Cr-1Mo-V-Nb
Steel Plates for Boilers and Pressure Vessels (ASME SA-387/SA-387M Grade 92),
NIMS Creep Data Sheet, National Institute for Materials Science, Tsukuba, No. 43
(1996).
19. Data Sheets on the Elevated-Temperature Properties of 9Cr-0.5Mo-1.8W-V-Nb Steel
Tube for Power Boilers (ASME SA-213/SA-213M Grade T92) and 9Cr-0.5Mo-1.8W-V-
Nb Steel Pipe for High Temperature Service (ASME SA-335/SA-335M Grade P92),
NIMS Creep Data Sheet, National Institute for Materials Science, Tsukuba, No. 48
(2002).
20. Viswananthan, R., Henry, J.F., Tanzosh, J. M., Stanko, G., Shingledecker, J. P., Vitalis,
B., and Purgert, R. “U.S. Program on Materials Technology for Ultra-Supercritical Coal
Power Plants.” Journal of Materials Engineering and Performance. Vol. 14 (3) June
2005. 281-292.

1013