MPWT19-15297

Special Forgings. Technical and Quality Requirements Supplementary to Standard

Ricardo Hernández Soto Abdullah M. Al-Rumaih

Técnicas Reunidas/Inspection Department. Saudi Aramco/Consulting Services Department
Madrid, 28015 Dharhan, 31311
Spain Saudi Arabia

ABSTRACT

Long weld neck flanges, self-reinforced forged connections (SRCs), forged Y-rings and other special
forgings are widely used in pressure-vessel fabrications for Oil and Gas industry. ASTM(1) A-350 LF2
Class 1 is one of the most common materials specified for these tailor-made components, especially for
SRCs on pressure vessels with toughness requirements, as this material warranties 20 Joules (average
of three specimens) at -46 ºC. However, in recent years there has been growing concern in the industry
as a result of the increasing number of cases of low toughness and low tensile strength issues with
materials certified as ASTM A-350 LF2. This is fostering the definition of additional requirements to the
ASTM to minimize the risk.

The complexity of the metallurgical processes involved in mechanical properties deterioration, where
multiple variables interact, mandates to implement control majors during the fabrication of ASTM A-350
forging materials. This paper introduces some guidelines to enhance the quality control and mechanical
testing reliability in the certification process of special forgings carried out by manufacturers. These
guidelines can be applied to not only to those made of ASTM A-350, but also to ASTM A-266 and ASTM
A-765.

Key words: forged flanges, self-reinforced connections, Charpy, loss of toughness, normalizing heat
treatment, tensile strength, ASTM A-350

(1)
American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM), 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA.
 INTRODUCTION

Authors decided to study the mechanical behavior of components made of ASTM A-350 LF2 Class 1 with
the postweld heat treatment (PWHT) holding time, due to low toughness incidents in the industry recently
published.1,2,3

Seven SRCs between 2 and 4 inches discarded because of over-machining, which belong to four
different Heats were used for the study. Mechanical tests were done in both “as delivery” (normalized)
and in the maximum simulated postweld heat treatment condition. (Max. sPWHT: i.e., the sample of the
material is subjected to all the PWHT that will undergo during vessel manufacturing plus two additional
PWHT cycles for future repairs at site) defined in the corresponded original Material Test Certificates
(MTCs). Chemical analysis and metallographic characterization of the samples were also performed.

Mechanical test results showed significant variations from the value reported in the forgings MTCs. Even
after sPWHT, some tensile strength and toughness figures were below the minimum required by ASTM
A-350 specification.

Tensile strength loss was related with the long sPWHT and the Carbon Equivalent (Ceq) of the Heats.
Regarding toughness, the results correlated with the average grain size of the samples, being the cooling
rate from normalizing the probable cause of the difference found in such sizes. This latter variable was
not identified in investigation of previous incidents.

The main conclusion of this incident is the necessity to introduce more detailed sampling and testing
procedures to obtain reliable certifications of the SCRs, and to prevent these anomalies from going
undetected.

EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE

Mechanical Testing

The study had to be conducted on the final machined forgings. The main working direction of the pieces
were unknown, since the MTCs do not indicate the forging manufacturing route (open-die press forging
or ring rolling).
 Figure 1: Red arrows sign main working directions for disc press forging (left hand), ring rolling (center)
and bar press forging (right hand)

Therefore, it was decided to standardize the extraction of the test specimens taking their longitudinal axis
parallel to the neck of the SRC. In this way, the mechanical samples would be transverse to the main
working direction for SRCs manufactured by both solid disc press forging and ring rolling process, while
they would be parallel in case of SCRs machined from press-forging bars. The SRCs selected had sizes
compatible with both open-die pressing of either discs or bars.

.
Figure 2: Sketch of an SRC and picture. Red dashed line denotes the longitudinal axis of the mechanical
test specimen. They were extracted from the middle of the hub area.

Tensile strength, Charpy impact test and hardness were measured in “as delivery” and simulated PWHT
conditions, except from one Heat which had no spare pieces without PWHT.

Chemical and metallographic analysis

Broken impact test specimens were subjected to the following tests in order to find microstructural
features or chemistry factors which could account for the results obtained in the mechanical tests:

• Chemical analysis through ASTM E–415 (Optical Emission Spectroscopy, OES) for C, P, S, Mn,
Si, Cr, Ti, V, Cu, Ni, Al and B determination.4
• ASTM E–1019, thermo-conductivity method for Nitrogen determination.5
• ASTM E–1245, for determination of Ferrite – Pearlite content by automatic image analysis.6
 • ASTM E–112, prior austenitic grain size (PAGS) according to McQuain Ehn Method and average
grain size determination.7
• Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and energy-dispersive X-ray spectrometry (EDS) were
performed to verify the eventual effect of trace elements (Ti, Nb, B, etc.,) in the grain boundary
during the normalizing, and the eventual presence of other elements which could affect
mechanical properties.

RESULTS

Mechanical Test

For an easy reference to the reader,

Table 1
ASTM A – 350 LF2 Class 1 mechanical properties

Tensile Strength Average CVN (J) Hardness

(MPa) @ -46ºC (HB)

485 - 655 ≥ 20 ≤197

The results for the heats under study were:

Table 2
Mechanical test results

Heat Sample Heat Treatment Condition Tensile Strength (MPa) Average CVN (J) Hardness (HB)

A Normalized (N) 534 107 152

N + PWHT
1 B 478 8 138
(630ºC – 390 minutes)
N + PWHT
C 487 15 145
(630ºC – 390 minutes)
A Normalized (N) 526 178 141
N + PWHT
2 B 465 292 130
(630ºC – 390 minutes)
N + PWHT
C 467 75 142
(630ºC – 390 minutes)
A Normalized (N) 507 10 133
3
N + PWHT
B 487 7 132
(630ºC – 390 minutes)
N + PWHT
4 A 495 7 130
(630ºC – 405 minutes)
Chemical analysis

The results obtained were as follows:

Table 3
Chemical analysis, wt - %

N
Heat Sample C Mn Mn:C Al Cr Mo V Ni Cu Nb Ceq Others
(ppm)
B: 17
A 0.20 0.88 4.4 0.017 20 0.04 - - - - - 0.35
ppm
B: 23
1 B 0.21 0.87 4.1 0.016 40 0.03 - - - - - 0.36
ppm
B: 22
C 0.23 0.94 4.1 0.016 40 0.04 - - - - - 0.39
ppm
A 0.16 1.34 8.4 0.030 20 0.07 - 0.04 0.02 0.03 0.018 0.41 -

2 B 0.15 1.30 8.7 0.029 40 0.07 - 0.04 0.02 0.03 0.017 0.39 -

C 0.15 1.31 8.7 0.027 20 0.07 - 0.04 0.02 0.03 0.017 0.39 -

A 0.18 1.25 6.9 0.027 70 0.10 0.02 - 0.05 0.10 - 0.42 -

3
B 0.19 1.24 6.5 0.029 50 0.10 0.02 - 0.05 0.10 - 0.43 -

4 A 0.23 0.84 3.7 0.029 70 0.10 0.02 - 0.04 0.08 - 0.40 -

Metallographic characterization

Table 4
Metallographic characterization

Heat Treatment Ferrite Pearlite Grain Size

Heat Sample PAGS
Condition (volume %) (volume %) (ASTM No)
A Normalized (N) 48 52 7 8-9
N + PWHT
1 B 51 49 7-8 9
(630ºC – 390 minutes)
N + PWHT
C 36 64 8 8
(630ºC – 390 minutes)
A Normalized (N) 79 21 8-9 11-8
N + PWHT
2 B 75 25 8-9 12-6
(630ºC – 390 minutes)
N + PWHT
C 77 23 8 11-8
(630ºC – 390 minutes)
A Normalized (N) 75 25 8 6-7
3 N + PWHT
B 70 30 8 6-7
(630ºC – 390 minutes)
N + PWHT
4 A 75 25 8 6-7
(630ºC – 405 minutes)
Heat 3 and Heat 4 shown clear indications of banding. It can be seen clearly in the following micrographs.

Figure 3: Micrographs for Heat 3 Sample A (left side) and Heat 4 Sample A (right side).

Representative micrographs showing average grain sizes,

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Figure 4: Representatives micrographs (a) Heat 1 Sample A, (b) Heat 2 Sample A,
(c) Heat 3 Sample A, (d) Heat 4 Sample A
Prior austenitic grain size (PAGS) micrographs,

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Figure 5: PGAS measurement for (a) Heat 1 Sample A, (b) Heat 2 Sample A,
(c) Heat 3 Sample A, (d) Heat 4 Sample A

Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and energy-dispersive X-ray spectrometry (EDS)

SEM did not show anything remarkable except for Heat 1. Boron was found combined with Nitrogen
forming nitrides, and also a significant quantity of non-metallic inclusions with the presence of both
Manganese and Sulfur.
 Spectrum (a)

Spectrum (b)

Spectrum (c)

(a) (b)

(c)

Figure 6: SEM-EDS Heat 1 Sample B. Spectrum (a) is a Boron Nitride. Spectrum (b) is a non-
metallic inclusion with presence of Manganese and Sulphur. Spectrum (c) is a Boron Nitride
 DISCUSSION

Toughness

Bibliography gathers some recommendations to ensure toughness, that even have been suggested as
amended of ASTM A–350 requirements:

(a) Mn:C ratio minimum 5:1.8,9 The higher this ratio is, the more effective is the Normalizing.
(b) Average grain size 8 – 9 and finer.10
(c) Minimum Al content of 0.02%, which promotes grain refining through the pinning effect of AlN on
Austenite grains.
(d) Maximum Pearlite content of 30%.11
Regarding the PAGS, there is no reference in the bibliography. However, from the results obtained, no
significant differences are observed in the PAGS among the Heats, and there is no correlation between
the Impact test value obtained and this parameter. It can only be concluded that Normalizing practices,
from a holding temperature and time stand point, have been similar between the different Heats.

“As delivery” results show that it is the average grain size the parameter which better correlates with
toughness.12 Even the coarser grain of Heat 3 seems to offset the effect of both the low Pearlite content
and the high Mn:C ratio.
The relation between the PAGS and average grain size for Heats 3 and 4 diverges from the other Heats.
Furthermore, the micrographs for these Heats show banding microstructure. Banding itself would not
necessarily imply a degradation of mechanical properties.13 However, it is a clear sign of slow cooling
rate from normalizing,14 being the latter the most likely cause of the coarse average grain size15 of these
samples and poor toughness value.

sPWHT specimens adhere to this trend except for Heat 1. However, this Heat shows the presence of
Boron. As a matter of fact, SEM images evidence the formation of Boron Nitrides and non-metallic
inclusions. Low toughness of sPWHT samples could be explained either by the effect of the coarsening
in the sPWHT of the Boron Nitrides, or consequence of the non-metallic inclusions, or the combined
effect of both factors.

Tensile Strength

Deviations from the minimum Ultimate Tensile Strength required by ASTM A–350 occur in the sPWHT.
Larson Miller Parameter is used to assess the effect on mechanical properties of the holding time and
temperature of heat treatments below austenization temperature. The formula for a single heat treatment
is:

LMP = T ∙ (20 + log (t)) (1)

with T temperature in Kelvin degree (K) and t, time in hours (h).

This equation gives a value of 18,797 LMP for the sPWHT performed at 630 – 635 ºC for 390 minutes.
If the results of the Ultimate Tensile Strength (UTS) are plotted against the Carbon Equivalent (Ceq) of
the Heat/Samples sPWHT at the above-mentioned condition, the results are coherent with those reported
for high thickness ASTM A–516 Gr. 70 Carbon Steel Plates.16 This material has the same minimum UTS
requirement (485 MPa) and it has been observed that heat treatment with Larson Miller Parameters
greater than 18.500 on plates of thicknesses between 100 – 200 mm and Carbon Equivalent of 0.43 can
lead to UTS value below the minimum required. It is worth noting that SRCs are machined from solid
discs or bars, and rings which normally present thickness in that range (see Figure 2). In the case of this
study, a limit in 0.39 of Ceq can be established as the minimum value to ensure tensile strength.

The formula for the Carbon Equivalent considered is:

Ceq = C + Mn/6 + (Cr+Mo+V)/5 + (Ni+Cu)/15 (2)

Note that below chart includes the Samples with sPWHT performed at 630 – 635 ºC for 390 minutes
(LMP 18,797). Heat 4 Sample 1 is not in the chart as its holding time at PWHT was 405 minutes (18,811).
However, it fits in the trend, as its Ultimate Tensile Strength is greater than 485 MPa, being its Ceq 0.40.
490

UTSmin : 485 MPa

485

480
UTS (MPa)

475

470

465

460
0,35 0,36 0,37 0,38 0,39 0,4 0,41 0,42 0,43 0,44
Ceq

Figure 7: UTS plotted against Carbon Equivalent for sPWHT samples with LMP of 18,797

Causes of the mismatch between actual pieces and MTCs.

Test specimens were extracted from final machined forgings, not from their original solid rings, bars or
hollow rings. This means that in the case of solid rings and bars the samples were taken closer to the
nuclei of the forging, where the normalizing might not have been as effective as in the ¼ thickness depth
defined in ASTM for the location of the mechanical test specimens. Even though, the mismatch between
the results reported in the MTCs and those obtained cannot be explained on this basis only, as certificates
lack critical information from a sampling stand point.

Forgings MTCs do not allow to verify essentials requirements of ASTM A–350, as for example: (1)
representative forging for mechanical testing is not defined, so that compliance with paragraph 7.1.1.2
cannot be confirmed, (2) forging manufacturing route is missing, then major working direction and
fulfillment with paragraph 7.1.3.4 is hardly verified.

Self-Reinforced Connections are usually tailor-made components requiring an extensive outsourcing of

activities which make it difficult to monitor Quality during the fabrication. However, it seems necessary to
contractually oblige Forgings suppliers to submit a Manufacturing Quality Control Plan with the following
contents:

(1) For each Heat Treatment (Normalizing) Lot:

(a) Slab/ Billet/ Bloom Heat number of each piece.
(b) Dimensions (OD, ID, T) in mm of each piece.
(c) Weight of each piece.
(d) Manufacturing route of each piece (i.e., ring rolling, upsetting and cogging of a disc or a bar,
etc.)
(e) Representative piece for certification testing purposes. ASTM A–350 allows to obtain the test
specimens either from a sacrificial forging, or an extension and even separately forged blanks.
Authors recommends the first option. Moreover, if more than one forging route occurs in the
same Heat Treatment Lot, one representative sample for each route had to be tested. For
high diameter rings, Forging manufacturer had to get the concurrence of Vessel designer and
clear sketches for option in paragraph 7.1.3.5 ASTM–A 350.

(2) Mechanical testing sketches for each representative piece. Mechanical testing should be
assessed not only in the main forging direction, but also transverse to that.

Figure 8: Sample of a sketch showing supplementary test specimens for mechanical testing in a
ring rolling forging.

(3) Mechanical tests and chemical analysis had to be executed in Third Party Laboratories, certified
in ISO 17025 in the relevant techniques. In-house laboratories could be accepted if they were
certified under such norm. This is required in order to minimize eventual false positives, especially
in Impact Test. Toughness of ASTM A–350 LF2 Class 1 material is extremely sensible to small
variations in the temperature of tests specimens. Hence, a different of even 5 ºC from -46 ºC at
the moment of the impact with the pendulum could yield an excessive high value, not being
accurate of the actual material condition.
 (4) A specific Inspection and Test Plan had to be prepared where the set of documents to be
submitted before fabrication and after certification is defined. Mechanical and chemical tests
should be established as Witness or Holding points for all the parties involved.

This seems to be a more appropriate way to ensure the quality of this critical products than relying in
supplementary chemistry requirements only.

CONCLUSIONS

There are complex interactions between the different metallurgical factors and the forging manufacturing
route, thickness of the rough forging, normalizing practice and even cooling rate and subsequent
tempering treatments play a role on both final microstructure and mechanical properties obtained.

Therefore, a proper approach to ensure the technical and quality soundness of the Forgings requires the
improvement of the sampling procedures. This way the reliability and accuracy of the tests performed for
certification purposes would be refined and hence, the results reported would closely match to the actual
properties of the forgings in both as delivery and sPWHT conditions.

REFERENCES

1. R.M. Thompson, K.C. Baker, “Impact Toughness Deficiencies in ASME SA-350 LF2 Flanges,”
Proceedings of the ASME 2017 Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference, paper PVP2017-
65801(Waikoloa, HW: ASME, 2017), p.6.

2. B. Messer, S. Soltaninia, T. Hamre, “Susceptibility of Carbon Steel Pipe, Fittings and Flanges to Brittle
Fracture,” Proceedings of the ASME 2017 Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference, paper PVP2017-
65825 (Waikoloa, HW: ASME, 2017), p.5-6.

3. S. Zhu, J. Bouman, D. Raghu, “Flange Quality Investigation to Prevent Brittle Fracture,” Proceedings
of the ASME 2017 Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference, paper PVP2017-66179(Waikoloa, HW:
ASME, 2017), p.5.

4.ASTM(1)E-415 (latest revision), “Standard Test Method for Optical Emission Vacuum Spectrometric
Analysis of Carbon and Low-Alloy Steel” (West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM).

5. ASTM E-1019 (latest revision), “Standard Test Method for Determination of Carbon, Sulfur, Nitrogen,
and Oxygen in Steel and in Iron, Nickel, and Cobalt Alloys” (West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM).

6. ASTM E-1245 (latest revision), “Standard Test Method for Determining the Inclusion or Second-Phase
Constituent Content of Metals by Automatic Image Analysis” (West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM).

7. ASTM E-112 (latest revision), “Standard Test Method for Determining Average Grain Size” (West
Conshohocken, PA: ASTM).

8. R.M. Thompson, K.C. Baker, “Impact”, p.6.

9. B. Messer, S. Soltaninia, T. Hamre, “Susceptibility”, p.6-7.

1
American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM), 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA.
10. B. Mintz, “Structure/Property Relationship for Normalized Pipe Flanges (Grade LF2) Made to ASTM
Specification A 350/A 350M,” Journal of Testing and Evaluation, JTEVA, Volume 16, No. 6, (Nov. 1988),
p. 540.

11. B. Mintz, “Structure/Property”, p.540.

12. B. Mintz, “Structure-Property Relationships for Normalised Flanges for Low Temperature Service,”
Ironmaking and Steelmaking, Volume 26, No.1 (1999), p. 40.

13. G. Krauss, “Solidification, Segregation, and Banding in Carbon and Alloy Steels,” Metallurgical and
Materials Transactions B, Volume 34B, No. 6, (December 2003), p. 788.

14. M. Maalekian, H. Azizi-Alizamini, M. Militzer, “Phase Field Modeling of Microstructure Banding in

Steels”, Metallurgical and Materials Transactions A, Volume 47A, (January 2016), p. 611 – 612.

15. M. Umemoto, Z.H Guo, I. Tamura, “Effect of Cooling Rate on Grain Size of Ferrite in a Carbon Steel”,
Material Science and Technology, Volume 3, (April 1987), p. 249.

16. C. Chauvy, L. Coudreuse, P. Toussaint, “Potential Detrimental Consequences of Excessive PWHT

on Pressure Vessel Steel Properties”, Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology, Volume 134 (April 2012),
p. 3 – 4.