PWHT EXEMPTION THICKNESS CRITERIA

CSConnect Items 08-179 (B31.1); 03-1453 (B31.3);

05-1182 (B31 TC/F&E)
P. D. Flenner, PE
Flenner Engineering Services, LLC
6537 Wyndham Dr.
Kalamazoo, MI49009

Summary

A Task Group was formed in the 1990s with the target to provide consistency in the
PWHT rules within the various BVP and B31 Codes. This task was not
accomplished since it was realized that much more data was needed to justify the
resolutions of the inconsistent Code rules. It was therefore dissolved with
recommendations to do more research to provide the necessary justification. A
number of projects have now been completed so the intent of this white paper is to
justify a number of Code changes specific to the B31 Codes. These proposals
would then be taken forward to the BPV to justify changes toward consistency within
those Codes.

EPRI has completed studies which compare as-welded properties of a thick section
weldas opposed to welds on the same material on exempted thicknesses. This
testing has been performed on materials which are assigned P Nos. 1, 3, 4, & 5A
using thicknesses that are currently exempted and thicknesses that currently require
PWHT by the governing Codes. These properties are compared in order to
determine if it can be justified to relax the current exemption thickness limits for
PWHT within the specifying Codes. Other related documents are also referenced in
this paper to further justify potential Code changes.

The most significant of the proposed Code changes is the proposal to make the
PWHT of P No. 1 (Groups 1 & 2) welds to be nonmandatory. There will also be a
number of changes proposed in the rules within B31.3 to make the rules consistent
between B31.1 and B31.3. Finally, the current exemption thickness rules are
proposed to be made consistent and clarified for P Nos. 1, 3, 4, and 5A.Included
within the B31.3 changes are changes to the PWHT requirements for P No. 15E
materials. These changes are badly needed in B31.3 since the current rules do not
adequately cover the requirements for PWHT on these creep strength enhanced
ferritic steels.

As a result of recognized problems within the preheat rules in B31.3, there will also
be changes proposed for the B31.3 preheat rules. These changes will be relatively
minor from a technical standpoint so these are not addressed within this white paper
but will be instead addressed within the B31.3 CS Connect item.

1
Background

A comprehensive program was undertaken by EPRI to study the PWHT exemption

thickness criteria in the ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Codes and in the ASME
B31 Pressure Piping Codes. This study included the P Nos. 1, 3, 4, and 5A
materials (ASME Section IX), generally described as carbon steels, C-Mo steels,
Low CrMo steels (up to 2% Cr), and intermediate CrMo steels (2-3% Cr). This study
occurred over a period of 6years. Enough information has been generated to lend
support to revise some of the existing exemptionsor exemption thicknesses that are
specified within the various applicable construction Codes. This report will be used
to directly support changes within the B31.1 and B31.3 Codes but may also be used
to support similar changes within other construction Codes such as ASME Section I,
Section III, and Section VIII.

The EPRI program tested welds made on varied thicknesses of the different
materials (machined from the same heats) in order to compare the as welded
properties of the currently exempted thicknesses to those of thicker sections. The
tests performed included hardenability tests, hardness traverse tests, tensile tests,
bend tests, CVN toughness tests, and fatigue tests. Both bead on plate/pipe welds
and full cross section welds were done and tested as applicable. Additional tests
were also done on P No. 1 carbon steel (A-516 Grade 70 and A-515 Grade 70) with
varying heat input and greater thickness to determine if this was a significant factor
in the results.

This study also includes data taken from other identified sources. The
resulting proposals for Code changes take into account the limitations of the
testing done and the current exemption thicknesses of the related Code and
Regulatory Requirements

General

The construction Codes all address PWHT with varying rules for exemptions based
on materials, thicknesses, strengths, alloy contents, and the P Numbers as assigned
by ASME Section IX.The rules are not consistent between Codes for the thicknesses
that require PWHT, the definition of the thicknesses that require PWHT, the material
properties that turn on the PWHT requirements, the holding temperatures, the
holding times, the heating and cooling rates, and the terminology used to describe
the requirements. The general approach is to require PWHT unless exempted. As
will be explained in this paper, this in some cases results in degraded weldments as
a result of the PWHT. While this may be true for all of the materials being
addressed (P Nos. 1, 3, 4, & 5A), further work is needed to make major changes to
the low alloy materials.

2
The repair oriented codes (ASME Section XI and the National Board Inspection Code
(NBIC)) have allowed the temperbead or half bead alternatives to PWHT. There are
related Code proposals which may address the use of temperbead techniques within
the B31 Codes (csconnect item 04-180 for B31.1) but this is not being addressed in this
white paper.

The following is a brief description of the variousPWHT rules for P Nos. 1, 3, 4, and 5A.

ASME B31.1- Power Piping Code – 2010 Edition

ASME B31.1 currently requires PWHT for materials greater than the following
thicknesses:

P No. 1 (Groups 1,2,3) - > ¾ inch*

P No. 3 (Groups 1,2) - >⅝inch*
P No. 4 (Groups 1,2) - > ½ inch**
P No. 5A (Group 1) - > ½ inch**

* The thickness may be the weld thickness for some weld configurations but is the
greater material thickness otherwise. (Note: B31.1 allows an exemption for P No. 1
materials up to 1½ inch in material thickness with additional criteria of a limited CE and
an increased preheat.)
** The thickness is the greater material thickness. Additional limitations exist for carbon
content and preheat. Exemptions are offered for non-load-carrying attachments, for
seal welds, and for socket welds on P Nos. 4 & 5A materials.

ASME B31.3- Process Piping Code – 2010 Edition

ASME B31.3 currently requires PWHT for materials greater than the following
thicknesses. Additional criteria include the specified tensile strength of the material and
a Brinell hardness after PWHT is specified for some materials.

P No. 1 - > ¾ inch*

P No. 3 - > ¾ inch**
P No. 4 - > ½ inch**
P No. 5A - > ½ inch**

*The thickness may be the weld thickness for some weld configurations but is the
greater material thickness otherwise.
**The thickness may be the weld thickness (any plane through the weld) for some weld
configurations but is the greater material thickness otherwise.

3
ASME Section I - Power Boilers – 2010 Edition with 2011 Addenda

ASME Section I currently requires PWHT for materials greater than the following
thicknesses:

P No. 1 (Groups 1,2,3) - > ¾ inch*

P No. 3 (Groups 1,2) - >⅝ inch*
P No. 4 (Groups 1,2) - >⅝ inch*
P No. 5A (Group 1) - >⅝ inch*

*The thickness may be the weld thickness for some weld configurations but is the lesser
material thickness otherwise. Additional limitations exist for carbon content and
preheat. Exemptions are offered for non-load-carrying attachments. An exemption is
also offered for seal welds on P No. 4& 5A materials.

ASME Section III, Div 1 – Rules for Construction of Nuclear Facility

Components – Subsection NB (Class 1) – 2010 Edition with 2011 Addenda

ASME Section III currently requires PWHT for materials greater than the following
thicknesses:

P No. 1 - >1½ inch*

P No. 3 - >⅝ inch*
P No. 4 - >½ inch*
P No. 5A - >½ inch*

*The thickness may be the weld thickness for some weld configurations but is the
lesser material thickness otherwise. Additional exemptions are allowed for fillet
welds, socket welds, and attachment welds.

ASME SectionVIII, Div 1 – Rules for Construction of Pressure Vessels – 2010

Edition with 2011 Addenda

ASME Section VIII currently requires PWHT for materials greater than the following
thicknesses:

P No. 1 (Groups 1,2,3) - > 1½ inch*

P No. 3 (Groups 1,2) - >⅝ inch*
P No. 4 (Groups 1,2) - >⅝ inch*
P No. 5A (Group 1) - >⅝ inch*

*The thickness may be the weld thickness for some weld configurations but is the
lesser material thickness otherwise. Additional exemptions are allowed for fillet
welds, socket welds, and attachment welds.

4
Technical Review

Effect of PWHT on Weld Properties

The primary reasons that components are required to be subjected to PWHT within
the ASME Code rules are: (1) the reduction of residual stresses and (2) the
tempering of hardened structures1. There are other properties that are affected by
PWHT such as toughness, tensile strength, ductility, fatigue strength, corrosion
resistance, and creep rupture strength. These properties are interrelated to different
degrees but which are not in general used as direct criteria within the codes.

Residual stresses may increase the potential for stress corrosion and may also
contribute to fatigue cracking. Residual stresses also may cause distortion
(although distortion is not corrected by PWHT). It is expected that the level of
residual stress remaining after the completion of the weld is related to the total weld
volume. Increasing the volume of weld metal may increase the residual stress.
However, residual stresses cannot exceed the yield point of the material. Therefore,
the residual stresses are limited as a result of the mechanical properties of the
material. The residual stresses may also be varied with the welding technique
although this is difficult to quantify.

Rapid cooling of the weld metal and the surrounding base metal or the heat affected
zone (HAZ) due to cooling by conduction may result in zones of high hardness.
This rapid cooling is an unavoidable result of the welding process although some
reduction in the cooling rate may be offset by the use of a weld preheat or increasing
the heat input. High local hardness may contribute to several cracking mechanisms,
including fatigue. High local hardness can also contribute to a lower corrosion
resistance, loss of toughness, and loss of ductility.

Although the Codes do not directly address toughness as a criterion for PWHT,
toughness is a significant property with regard to crack propagation as well as the
ability to withstand impact loads and sudden temperature changes. Toughness is
significant factor in preventing catastrophic failures, although the toughness is
generally adequate when the service application is at higher temperatures (there
may be a concern for the toughness during any required hydro test at temperatures
below the NDTT).

PWHT may help to achieve desired mechanical properties if properly performed.

However, there can also be some negative consequences on toughness. There
may also be negative effects on the microstructure if heat treatment is performed for
an excessive length of time, or if the heat treatment temperature is too high.

PWHT can have detrimental effects, even when properly performed per the current
rules. It has been reported that PWHT will degrade the properties of some carbon

1
BPTCS Task Group on PWHT – Final Report, March 4, 1998.

5
and carbon-manganese steels2. As mentioned above, toughness can also be
negatively affected. With some materials, there may also be a susceptibility to
reheat cracking during PWHT. PWHT is a fabrication process that needs to be
applied properly. Improper application, including excessive or insufficient heating,
unequal application of heat, or excessive time at the PWHT temperature, may all
have negative effects.

The use of PWHT alternative techniques such as temperbead can also help to
achieve the desired properties in the weldment. The process of achieving these
results with temperbead techniques is well explained in the background information
for a revision to ASME Section IX, Item BC01-2423 and in EPRI Document
10068064. The use of normal welding techniques also has a similar tempering
effect, although it has not been generally quantifiable since the bead placement and
the heat input is not as controlled.

Multiple passes with limited heat input is expected to: (1) result in local tempering of
the high hardness HAZ, with the degree of tempering dependent on the material,
and (2) to generally improve the HAZ toughness due to a reduction in the course
grain reqion of the HAZ. It may also lower the effective residual stress on the ID
through localized heating and rapid primary creep. Additional work may be needed
in order to quantify the effect of multiple pass techniques on residual stresses but an
EPRI technical update5 and EPRI final report on additional 2009/2010 testing6 has
accumulated significant data on the remaining properties.

2
K.E. Orie and C.R. Roper, “The Effect of PWHT on Normalized Base-Metal Properties of ASTM A516
Steel”, Welding Research Council Bulletin 481, May, 2003.
3
W.R. Sperko, ASME Boiler & Pressure Code, Committee Correspondence for Item BC01-242, August 26,
2003.
4
S.J. Findlan, “Review of Temperbead Welding Heat Input Ratios for ASME Code Applications”, Report
1006806. EPRI, November, 2002.
5
S. McCracken, A. McGehee “Welding and Repair Technology: Evaluation of Post Weld Heat Treatment
(PWHT) Exemption Thickness Limitations”. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2009. 1019171.
6
R. Couch “Welding and Repair Technology: 2009/2010 PWHT Exemption Thickness Test Results”. EPRI,
Palo Alto, CA: 1022883.

6
Criteria for PWHT Exemption Thickness

The Code PWHT rules are inconsistent as can be seen in the brief review above.
The rules key on requiring PWHT when specified thicknesses are reached. They
also may require additional (and in some cases higher) preheat if PWHT is to be
exempted. There are differences in the thicknesses where PWHT is required and
even in the definition of what thickness is being considered. This results in much of
the inconsistency between the current Codes which are addressed in this report.

The construction Codes in general do not directly address the issue of residual
stresses. The concern for residual stresses becomes most important when there
are significant cyclic stresses or when there is a significant potential for certain types
of corrosion mechanisms (related to stress). These issues cannot be directly dealt
with in the Codes since they are not present in all situations. The one criterion that
addresses residual stress is the allowance for smaller welds to be used as the
criteria for exemption from PWHT. This is a very inconsistent variable in the Code
requirements, however, since the thickness that is used and their application vary
widely between Codes.

Hardness is not generally addressed by the Codes with the exception of B31.3,
which does require a Brinell hardness check on P Nos. 3, 4, and 5A. The problem
with the B31.3 Brinell hardness check is that it is difficult to get a good reading in the
small area of concern adjacent to the weld bead unless significant preparation is
performed. Even if significant preparation is performed, the Brinell test is generally a
macrohardness test and the results are averaged for a large area spanning the HAZ
rather than a microhardness test which is specific to the fairly small high hardness
HAZs.

While hardness is not often required to be determined after PWHT, many of the
existing Code rules for PWHT are based on expected issues with high hardness.
Code PWHT requirements increase with increasing thicknesses, alloy content, and
perceived hardenability, while the requirements may decrease with increasing
preheats.

The hardness tests done in the EPRI studies5 & 6 were microhardness using the
Vickers method with a 500 gram load (although some macrohardness tests were
done for a comparison6). This method would often result in higher hardness
readings than macrohardness methods such as the Brinell methods or Vickers with
high load application (e.g., 10 kg).

The criteria in the Codes which were used to determine the thicknesses where
PWHT is required are uncertain at best. The background for these thicknesses is
unknown although it may be as simple as the common material thickness limits for
the applications considered when these thicknesses were established. The
thickness where the heat flow becomes three-dimensional has also been used as a
criterion. This heat flow criteria seems technically unlikely in light of the fact that the

7
heat input of the individual weld passes would need to be taken into account in
relation to the component thickness. The wide range of applications regarding
welding pass heat input and thicknesses makes the 3d cooling an unlikely
contributor when these rules were originally formulated. It seems more likely that
the selection of the PWHT exemption criteria was mostly empirical and somewhat
arbitrary.

Even with the uncertainty for the exemption thickness criteria, the results have
generally been acceptable for those thicknesses that are currently exempted. There
has not been any recognized need to lower the exemption thickness criteria from the
values currently accepted in the Codes. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that
equivalent or adequate properties which result from as-welded specimens as
compared to the current exemption thicknesses should also be acceptable,
regardless of the material thicknesses being welded. However, caution is warranted
for service applications that see significant fatigue or corrosive environments. The
EPRI reports5 & 6 provide a comparison of quantifiable properties as a result of
normal welding (as-welded) on various material thicknesses to those properties that
result when the thicknesses are those which are currently exempted from PWHT in
the Codes. This is summarized in the following.

Comparison of As-Welded Material Properties with Thickness Variations

There are a number of sources for information related to this study but the primary
sources are the EPRI Reports5 & 6. These studies specifically targeted comparing
the properties of various materials in the as-welded condition on thicknesses where
PWHT is already exempted to thicker materials. Materials were chosen from ASME
Section IX P Nos. 1, 3, 4, and 5A. Information taken from other sources are
included in the references. The EPRI reports will be made available to ASME
Committee members as background material.

The original EPRI study5 specifically selected materials within each P No. to
represent higher hardenability as compared to the other available materials. This
was done to attempt to increase the conservatism of the tests. The tests which were
performed included Jominy End Quench tests on the base materials, microhardness
traverses (HV500) on both bead on plate/pipe welds and on full weld cross sections,
tensile tests, bend tests, toughness tests, and fatigue tests. The SMAW process
was used for all of the plate welds and the FCAW process was used for the pipe
welds.

In 2009 and 2010, additional testing was done as is presented in the EPRI Report6.
This extended the information on the as-welded properties of heavy section carbon
steel welds to include more variation on the heat input and the pass thickness on the
results.

8
For all materials, a single pass bead on plate/pipe weld showed an increased
hardness in the HAZ, particularly when no elevated preheat was used but also with
preheat. Limitations on the use of single pass welds are advisable.

All of the welds on all of the materials passed tensile and bend tests and room
temperature toughness tests (when done) to determine if the welds were likely to be
acceptable for WPS qualification. Additionally, all fatigue tests showed that the
fatigue strength of all the as-welded specimens were similar to the unaffected base
material. Since the data is available in the report, this paper will primarily deal with
the hardness and the toughness test results.

The following provides a summary report for these EPRI tests for each P No. of
material. Additional information from other sources is also reported as indicated.

P No. 1 Steels

Hardness Measurement Results

The hardness profile for the tested P No. 1 steels showed little difference between
the hardnesses on the minimum exempted thickness (¾”) and the 1½” thick
materials when multiple weld passes were used. (The highest average peak
hardness based on traverse microhardness measurements was actually found on a
material and thickness that is exempted from PWHT currently). Charpy V-notch
testing, tensile tests and side bend tests were also done on these materials to
determine if it was likely that a welding procedure could be qualified in the as-welded
condition. In one case the hardness was lower on the thicker plate.)

The following summary tables5 & 6 show the results of the hardness tests on the P
No. 1 materials.

9
Peak Hardness Summary on All P No. 1 Carbon Steel Materials

Average Average Peak

HV0.5- HV10
Peak HAZ Peak HAZ HAZ Peak HAZ
P No. 1 Material Test Plate BM
Hardness Hardness HV0.5 Hardness Hardness HV10
Hardness
HV0.5 HV10
A-516 Grade 70 EPRI 1019171 ¾ in. thick 207 226 (midwall) NA NA
182 HV0.5
A-516 Grade 70 EPRI 1019171 1½ in. thick 251 263 (midwall) NA NA
A-515 Grade 70 EPRI 1019171 ½ in. thick 220 240 (root) NA NA
A-515 Grade 70 EPRI 1019171 ¾ in. thick 263 303 (midwall) NA NA 196 HV0.5
A-515 Grade 70 EPRI 1019171 1½ in. thick 224 238 (midwall) NA NA
A-516 Grade 70 2009 208 230 (midwall) 172 HV0.5164
1½ in. Coupon A 217 249 (midwall)
Tests HV10
A-516 Grade 70 2009 207 219 (root) 163 HV0.5169
1½ in. Coupon B 216 250 (root)
Tests HV10
A-516 Grade 70 2009 187 195 (root) 159 HV0.5161
1½ in. Coupon D 209 237 (midwall)
Tests HV10
192 213 (face) 177 HV0.5166
A-515 Grade 70 2010 Test 2 in. Coupon E 200 217 (face)
HV10
Note: Average Peak Hardness is the Maximum Average for the Traverses for Each Coupon.
Peak HAZ Hardness is the Highest Hardness Measurement at Any HAZ Location (Traverses Only)
HV10 not taken on EPRI 1019171 Tests, Bolded material thicknesses are currently exempted from mandatory PWHT.

10
As the preceding table shows, the typical macrohardness measurements are lower than
the microhardness measurements. Local microstructure and composition controls the
hardness for microhardness tests and these effects are generally averaged for the larger
area macrohardness indentations. The documents that reference hardness as a criterion
for PWHT all use macrohardness measurements so the use of microhardness is a
conservative approach. Microhardness measurements are typically used for research and
for some failure analysis.

Toughness Test Results

The toughness tests (Cv at room temperature) showed that the as-welded samples had
significantly improved toughness across the HAZ and the weld metal from the base metal
toughness. No toughness testing was done on the 2010 test (Coupon E). The
improvement in HAZ toughness is shown in the following table5 & 6.

Charpy V-Notch Test Results – All P No. 1 Tests

P No. 1 Material Coupon/Specimen Notch Location Impact Strength, ft-lbs.

A-516 Grade 70
¾ in. thick HAZ 178 (1)
EPRI 1019171
A-516 Grade 70
1½ in. thick HAZ 167 (1)
EPRI 1019171
A-516 Grade 70
-- Base Metal 149 (1)
EPRI 1019171
A-515 Grade 70
½ in. thick HAZ 171.2 (1)
EPRI 1019171
A-515 Grade 70
¾ in. thick HAZ 83 (2)
EPRI 1019171
A-515 Grade 70
1½ in. thick HAZ 126.0 (1)
EPRI 1019171
A-515 Grade 70
-- Base Metal 29.8 (1)
EPRI 1019171
A-516 Grade 70
Coupon A, Specimen 1 HAZ 90.5
2009 Tests
A-516 Grade 70
Coupon A, Specimen 2 HAZ 98.5
2009 Tests
A-516 Grade 70
Coupon A, Specimen 3 HAZ 111.5
2009 Tests
A-516 Grade 70
Coupon A, Specimen 4 HAZ 121.0
2009 Tests
A-516 Grade 70
Coupon A, Specimen 5 HAZ 122.5
2009 Tests

11
 P No. 1 Material Coupon/Specimen Notch Location Impact Strength, ft-lbs.
A-516 Grade 70
-- Average for Coupon A 108.8 (3)
2009 Tests
A-516 Grade 70
Coupon B, Specimen 1 HAZ 180.0
2009 Tests
A-516 Grade 70
Coupon B, Specimen 2 HAZ 180.5
2009 Tests
A-516 Grade 70
Coupon B, Specimen 3 HAZ 120.0
2009 Tests
A-516 Grade 70
Coupon B, Specimen 4 HAZ 183.0
2009 Tests
A-516 Grade 70
Coupon B, Specimen 5 HAZ 173.5
2009 Tests
A-516 Grade 70
-- Average for Coupon B 167.4 (3)
2009 Tests
A-516 Grade 70
Coupon D, Specimen 1 HAZ 129.5
2009 Tests
A-516 Grade 70
Coupon D, Specimen 2 HAZ 154.0
2009 Tests
A-516 Grade 70
Coupon D, Specimen 3 HAZ 158.5
2009 Tests
A-516 Grade 70
Coupon D, Specimen 4 HAZ 151.0
2009 Tests
A-516 Grade 70
Coupon D, Specimen 5 HAZ 145.0
2009 Tests
A-516 Grade 70
-- Average for Coupon D 147.6 (3)
2009 Tests
A-516 Grade 70 Base Metal Coupon C,
Base Metal 46.5
2009 Tests Specimen 1
A-516 Grade 70 Base Metal Coupon C,
Base Metal 35.5
2009 Tests Specimen 2
A-516 Grade 70 Base Metal Coupon C,
Base Metal 46.0
2009 Tests Specimen 3
A-516 Grade 70 Average for Base Metal
-- 42.7 (1)
2009 Tests Coupon C
Notes:
General Note: Coupons A, B, C, & D are all the same base metal so base metal impact tests were only done on one
coupon
1 – Average of 3 specimens
2 – Average of 2 specimens
3 – Average of 5 specimens

12
Similar tests were run by the Edison Welding Institute7 on 4 in. thick SA-516 Grade 70
(which simulated a repair weld of 1.6 in. depth) carbon steel with varying preheat/interpass
temperatures (70F/420F, 300f/450F, 150F/210F, & 200F/300F) and with no PWHT.
Hardness traverses, toughness tests, and metallographic examination were done. The
hardness tests showed increases in the peak hardness readings that compared favorably
with the peak hardness found during the EPRI tests. The peak hardnesses ranged from
224 to 251 HV1. The results of the toughness tests showed a significant increase in the
toughness in the HAZ under all conditions where an initial preheat was used. The test
where there was no preheat above room temperature (70F) did not show the same
significant increase although the toughness was approximately equal to the unaffected
base metal. This indicates that a requirement for preheat should be maintained if currently
required PWHTs are exempted for carbon steel.

A number of other sources of information also relates to the need for PWHT on P No. 1
carbon steels. NACE Standard RP0472-20058 gives a recommended macrohardness in
the HAZ of 248 HV for wet H2S or hydrogen stress cracking (sulfide stress cracking)
service. This is a similar hardness level as the maximum macrohardness seen in the HAZ
in our tests. However, the exemption of PWHT for similar stress corrosion applications
should be used only with caution. It is not necessary to require PWHT in all corrosive
applications.

There are also concerns for the weld metal which was not addressed directly in the EPRI
Reports5&6 since the weld metal choice is controlled by means other than PWHT.
However, a cautionary statement would be beneficial in the Codes to address the filler
metal choice and the process limitations as related to as welded materials.

P No. 3 Steels

Only one P No. 3 material has been tested to date during the EPRI study5(SA-204 Grade
C). The hardness profile for the P No. 3 steel again showed little difference between the
hardnesses on the ½” currently exempted thickness and the 1½” thick materials when
multiple weld passes were used. There does seem to be a larger increase in the base
metal hardness after welding than that seen in the P No. 1 materials.

The following summary table5 shows the results of the hardness tests on the P No. 3
material.

7
L.M. Friedman, “Weld Repair Without Post-Weld Heat Treatment of Thick-Section Carbon Steel Components”, EWI,
Research Report 9402, February 1994.
8
Standard Recommended Practice: Methods and Controls to Prevent In-Service Environmental Cracking of Carbon
Steel Weldments in Corrosive Petroleum Refining Environments, National Association of Corrosion Engineers,
Standard RP0472-2005.

13
Peak Hardness Summary of Full Weld Plates for P No. 3 Material5
AVERAGE
PEAK HAZ
P NO. 3 COUPON PEAK HAZ
HARDNESS
MATERIAL SPECIMEN HARDNESS*
HV0.5
HV0.5
Full Weld ½” 304.3 322.7
SA-204 Gr. C Full Weld ¾” 276.0 289.4
Full Weld 1½” 294.3 303.7
Note: The average unaffected base metal hardness was 208 HV.
* Calculated by averaging the peak hardness values found at each traverse for each plate thickness

The toughness tests (Cv at room temperature) again showed that the as-welded samples
had significantly improved toughness across the HAZ and the weld metal from the base
metal toughness. This improvement in toughness (HAZ) is shown in the following table5.

Room Temperature CVN test results (average of three tests) – SA-204-C Material5
THICKNESS BASE
BASE WELD
(IN.) METAL
METAL HAZ METAL CVN
MATERIAL CVN
CVN IMPACT IMPACT
IMPACT
(FT-LBS) (FT-LBS)
(FT-LBS)
0.5” -- 234.7 167.3
P No.3 – SA-204-C 0.75” -- 167.7 195.5
1.5” 59.2 171.7 215.0

One anomaly occurred with the SA-204 Grade C material (P No. 3) – the hardenability
found during the Jominy End Quench test was higher than the P No. 4 materials even
though the carbon equivalent (CE) is lower. More investigation is needed to determine the
cause of this inconsistency.

P No. 4 Steels

Two product forms of the P No. 4 materials were tested – SA-387 Grade 11 plate and SA-
335 Grade P11 pipe. The FCAW process was used on the pipe material while the SMAW
process was used on the plate material. For multiple pass welds, the hardness profile for
the P No. 4 steels showed little difference between the hardnesses found on the ½”or the
⅝” currently exempted thickness and the ¾” thick material. However there was some
difference between those hardnesses and the hardnesses found on the 1½” thick
materials.

The following summary tables5show the results of the hardness tests on the P No. 4
materials.

14
Peak Hardness Summary of Full Weld Plates for SA-387 Gr. 115
AVERAGE
PEAK HAZ
PEAK HAZ
HARDNESS
HARDNESS*
HV0.5
HV0.5
Full Weld ½” 293.8 312.2
Full Weld ¾” 298.2 335.1
Full Weld 1½” 350.9 384.6
Note: The average unaffected base metal hardness was 196 HV.
* Calculated by averaging the peak hardness values found at each traverse for each plate thickness

Peak Hardness Summary of Welded Pipe for SA-335Gr P115

AveragePeak Peak HAZ
HAZ Hardness*HV0.5 Hardness HV0.5
Welded Pipe - ⅝” 250.5 254.2
Welded Pipe - ¾” 259.4 270.5
Welded Pipe - 1½” 289.3 299.4
Note: The average unaffected base metal hardness was 180 HV.
* Calculated by averaging the peak hardness values found at each traverse for each pipe thickness

The toughness tests (Cv at room temperature) showed that the as-welded samples had
lower toughness across the HAZ and the weld metal than that of the base metal
toughness. The following table shows the toughness results of the P No. 4 materials 5.

Room Temperature CVN test results (average of three tests) of the P No. 4 Materials5
THICKNESS BASE
BASE WELD
(IN.) METAL
METAL HAZ METAL CVN
MATERIAL CVN
CVN IMPACT IMPACT
IMPACT
(FT-LBS) (FT-LBS)
(FT-LBS)
0.5” -- 167 116
P No.4 – SA-387-11
0.75 -- 159 129
Cl 2
1.5” 180 96.5 140

0.625” -- 63.3 --
P No.4 – SA-335-P11 0.75 -- 86.7 --
1.5” 199 155.8 --

P No. 5A Steels

Two product forms of the P No. 5A materials have been tested;These were SA-387 Grade
22 plate and SA-335 Grade P22 pipe. The FCAW process was used on the pipe material
while the SMAW process was used on the plate material. For multiple pass welds, the

15
hardness profile for the P No. 5A steels used showed that there was little difference
between the hardnesses found on the ½”or the ⅝” currently exempted thicknesses and the
1½” thick material.

The following summary tables5show the results of the hardness tests on the P No. 5A
materials.
Peak Hardness Summary of Full Weld Plates for SA-387 Gr. 225
AVERAGE
PEAK HAZ
PEAK HAZ
HARDNESS
HARDNESS*
HV0.5
HV0.5
Full Weld ½” 302.8 317.4
Full Weld ¾” 334.9 374.6
Full Weld 1½” 330.1 383.0
Note: The average unaffected base metal hardness was 191 HV.
* Calculated by averaging the peak hardness values found at each traverse for each plate thickness

Peak Hardness Summary of Welded Pipe for SA-335-Gr P22 [4]

AveragePeak
Peak HAZ
HAZ Hardness*
Hardness HV0.5
HV0.5
Welded Pipe - ⅝” 250.5 254.2
Welded Pipe - ¾” 259.4 270.5
Welded Pipe - 1½” 289.3 299.4
Note: The average unaffected base metal hardness was 180 HV.
* Calculated by averaging the peak hardness values found at each traverse for each pipe thickness

The toughness tests (Cv at room temperature) showed that the as-welded samples had
lower toughness across the HAZ and the weld metal than that of the base metal
toughness. There was little difference in the toughness of the½”or the ⅝” material
thicknesses that are currently exempted from PWHT and that of the 1½” thick materials.
The following table (reference [4]) shows the toughness results of the P No. 5A materials

16
Room Temperature CVN test results (average of three tests) for P No. 5A Materials [4]
THICKNESS BASE
BASE WELD
(IN.) METAL
METAL HAZ METAL CVN
MATERIAL CVN
CVN IMPACT IMPACT
IMPACT
(FT-LBS) (FT-LBS)
(FT-LBS)
0.5” -- 152 72
P No.5A – SA-387-22
0.75” -- 154 64
Cl 1
1.5” 209 149 47

0.625” -- 183.5 --
P No.5A – SA-335-
0.75 -- 185.3 --
P22
1.5” 240 192.5 --

Additional Information

There are a number of additional reports that also support some changes in the current
Code PWHT rules. Dr. Carl Spaeder has provided a draft report for an ASME Research
Project9which points out the known degradation of the notch toughness of some materials
as a result of PWHT. In addition, and to some extent related, the possibility of reheat
cracking that may occur may also be a negative consequence of unnecessary PWHT. Dr.
Spaeder provides a significant number of references supporting his recommendations,
which are:

1. “The Code should limit the mandate for a PWHT to those situations where there is
a benefit to the service performance of the vessel. This requirement is especially
applicable to steels produced to relatively high carbon content and found in older
vessels in need of repair.

2. “The above recommendation requires eliminating a mandatory PWHT for all

steels used in lethal service.

3. “The definition of lethal service should be expanded to include vessels containing

liquefied combustible substances where a leaking vessel could produce a vapor
cloud type of safety issue.

4. “The Code should providing guidance for welding steels such as P91. This steel
by virtue of its metallurgical characteristics requires a PWHT because of
sensitivity to stress corrosion cracking and brittle fracture in the as welded
condition. There are also steels that exhibit notch weakening in stress rupture
tests when produced to relatively high yield strengths.

9
Spaeder, C.E.,Degradation of Notch Toughness by a Post Weld Heat Treatment (PWHT), ASME Research, Draft,
August, 2010.

17
 5. “The recommendations that have appeared in previous studies indicated a need
to review the minimum PWHT temperatures for P4 and P5 type steels. It is
proposed that the Code consider making the minimum temperatures consistent
with those prescribed in the AWS Standard Welding Procedures.

6. “The Code should consider making provisions to mitigate the PWHT requirement
when a fracture mechanics analysis shows that the structures has sufficient notch
toughness at the lowest service temperature to tolerate the maximum flaw size at
the yield strength of the weldment in the as welded condition. This
recommendation requires developing a protocol for carrying out this task.”

Conclusions

The conclusion for the P No. 1 steels is that there is little to be gained from PWHT that
would result in improvement of the mechanical properties of the weldment. In fact, the
toughness of the HAZ in the as-welded condition is shown to be generally much better
than the base metal. With the additional requirements of an applied preheat, limited
welding heat input, Group 1 & 2 (P No. 1) material limits (the only groups tested), and
cautionary statements on the possible effect of residual stress on corrosion rates and the
filler metal selection, these materials do not need to be subjected to PWHT. This should
not be taken as a need to eliminate the PWHT but rather to allow the decision to be made
by engineering personnel rather than being dictated by Code requirements.

For the P Nos. 3, 4, & 5A steels, there is adequate information that supports some
relaxation in the PWHT exemption thicknesses. However, additional information is desired
in some areas such as the relaxation of residual stresses and the effect of PWHT on the
creep rupture strength of these materials. The data presented supports a step toward
consistency between the Codes by establishing a consistent thickness which may be
exempted from PWHT. This would enhance the ability to provide more uniform
procedures for organizations that work with multiple Codes. The uniform exemption
thickness for P Nos. 3, 4, & 5A materials would be to use ⅝ in. for all three materials
groups where current exemption thicknesses vary between ½ in. and ⅝ in. There is only
one outlier in this approach, that being the current PWHT exemption for P No. 3 materials
up to ¾ in. in the B31.3 Process Piping Code, which is greater than any other Code.

The existing requirements include a widely varying definition in the Codes of the thickness
that is used to determine the PWHT exemption. This exemption thickness varies
depending on the Code from (1) the lesser of the weld thickness to the greater material
thickness to (2) the lesser of the weld thickness to the thinner material thickness to (3) the
greater material thickness to (4) the thickness of the pressure boundary to (5) the greater
material thickness or thickness of any plane through the weld (modified to allow twice the
exempted thickness). In addition, there are differences within B31.1 on what materials
should use the possible weld thickness exemption.

18
Recommendations

The recommendation is that the mandatory requirement to perform PWHT on P No. 1,

Group 1 & 2 carbon steels should be eliminated providing the suggested limitations and
cautionary statements are made. The conclusion on the P No. 1 steels is that there is
relatively little to be gained from PWHT that would result in a significant increase in the
properties of the weldment. In fact, the toughness of the HAZ in the as-welded condition is
shown to be significantly better than the base metal. With the additional requirements of
an applied preheat, limited welding heat input, Group 1 & 2 P No. 1 material limits (the
only groups tested), and cautionary statements on the effect of residual stress, these
materials do not need to be subjected to PWHT.

The additional recommendation is made that the exemption thicknesses for all of the
above Codes should be ⅝ in. for the P No. 3, Group 1 & 2 steels, P No. 4, Group 1 & 2,
and P No. 5A, Group 1 steels. This would require changes in B31.1, B31.3, and Section
III. There would be no change needed for Section I and Section VIII.

Included in this proposal is the redefinition of the exemption thickness to be the greater
pressure boundary thickness at the weld or the weld thickness for P Nos. 1, 3, 4, and 5A.
It would be the greater pressure boundary thickness for any other material. The weld
thickness would also be defined in a consistent approach.

19