PROPERTIES OF T/P92 STEEL WELD METALS FOR

ULTRA SUPER CRTITICAL (USC) POWER PLANT

Zhuyao Zhang, Graham Holloway, Adam Marshall,

Metrode Products Limited, UK

Abstract
In order to achieve higher efficiencies and reduce emissions of environmentally damaging gases,
new power generation technology requires high pressure and high temperature parameters. These
have directly resulted in the introduction of ultra super critical (USC) plant and applications of a
series of advanced Cr-Mo creep resistant steels. Among these newly developed ferritic steels, T/P92
has creep strength 25%-30% higher than the currently widely used modified 9%Cr steel T/P91 and
has been specified as one of the major alloys for the construction of USC plant. The present paper
summarises the important phase transformation characteristics and properties of matching filler
metals for T/P92 steel and discusses factors that influence the performance of these weld metals.

Key words: Ultra Super Critical (USC), T/P92 steels, welding, weld metal, Creep

1Introduction

Fossil fuels are currently the main means of obtaining electric power, about 40% of electricity we consume is
still supplied by thermal power plants. However, the operation of conventional coal fired power plant releases
more harmful gases, such as CO2, NOx and SOx, than other power generation technology. Finding an effective
solution to reduce the emissions of harmful gases has been the major challenge for the power generation
industry as well as alloy material developers. Ultra Super Critical (USC) technology allows power plant to
work at higher steam temperatures and pressures, hence significantly increasing the efficiency of thermal power
plant, reducing fuel consumption and lowering emissions of harmful green house gases. When USC plant was
introduced in the late 90s, the 9%Cr ferritic creep resistant alloy specified for the main steam pipe and other
critical components was T/P91 steel. The T/P91 alloy allowed typical operating parameters up to 290bar
pressure, main steam temperature 580C and re-heat steam temperature 580C [1]. As development has
progressed, the new generation Cr-Mo alloys, T/P92, has replaced T/P91 alloy for USC unit. Compared to
T/P91 steel, T/P92 steel has 25%-30% higher creep strength. The maximum design parameters of an USC unit
have increased to 300bar/610C/620C -630C [2-4]; the efficiency of USC plant is now approaching 50%.

In recent years, as one of the most important steels for USC plant, T/P92 steel has found more and more
widespread use. To enable the full exploitation of T/P92 base material and increase its range of applications the
development of matching consumables has been necessary. These matching consumables have been used for
the fabrication and site erection of USC units using T/P92 steel. The present paper discusses the design
philosophy of matching welding consumables; the relevant phase transformation temperatures, such as
austenitisation temperatures during heating (Ac1), martensite transformation temperatures (Ms/Mf) during
continuous cooling and effect of alloying elements on these temperatures. Based on the examination of these
transformation temperatures, recommendations are made on welding parameters and postweld heat treatment
(PWHT) procedures. Previous papers by the same authors provide additional background on the general tensile
properties of T/P92 weld metals and also the effect of welding process on mechanical properties [5,6].

Using shielded metal arc welding (SMAW) and submerged arc welding (SAW) processes, investigations
were carried out to evaluate the effect of welding and PWHT procedures on the ambient temperature toughness
of T/P92 weld metals. According to the latest stress rupture results and field experience reports and newly

1
revised base material creep data, further evaluation of creep properties of the weld metals is also made.

2Design of matching welding consumables and alloy design

Presently, there are no national specifications for T/P92 steel welding consumables in either ASME/AWS or BS
EN standards. Therefore, the design of the matching weld metal was based on the T/P92 base material
composition and reference to the current international specifications for T/P91 welding consumables. The
deposit composition is carefully balanced to obtain a fully martensitic microstructure with little or no ferrite,
so that the best combination of high temperature creep properties and ambient toughness is achieved. Typical
T/P92 weld metal analyses are give in Table 1.

Nb: work on both T/P91 and T/P92 consumables has shown that reducing the niobium towards the lower end of
the parent alloy specification ranges has a beneficial effect on toughness. For this reason, most weld deposits
have niobium levels of 0.04% or 0.05%. One exception is T/P92 solid wire, with typically 0.06%Nb. The
GTAW process, with its inherently good toughness at ambient temperature, can tolerate a higher Nb level and
when used with the submerged arc process, the deposit chemistry is lower in Nb than the original wire analysis.

Ni: Is beneficial in improving toughness for two reasons;- it lowers the Ac1 temperature and this improves the
response to tempering and nickel also reduces the tendency for the formation of undesirable ferrite phase.
However, excessive nickel (>1%) is detrimental in that it can reduce the Ac1 to below the PWHT temperature
and so result in the formation of fresh untempered martensite on cooling to room temperature. Excessive nickel
may result in reduced creep properties. Nickel is therefore controlled at about the 0.5% level.

Co: Test results have indicated that additions of cobalt play a similar role to nickel and helps achieve stable
ambient impact toughness. Some reports also claim that Co, unlike Ni, has no effect on Ac1 temperature but
this will be discussed in more detail in section 3.1 of this paper.

Mn: Is generally controlled to a higher level than in the patent alloy to promote sufficient deoxidation and
ensure a sound weld deposit. However, it is important that the combination of manganese and nickel is not so
high that the Ac1 temperature is reduced excessively, hence causing a risk of austenite reformation at higher
PWHT temperatures. It is possible that some future specifications may limit to Ni+Mn to 1.5% or less as is the
case with T/P91 welding consumable specifications.

Si: Is an essential deoxidant and in conjunction with chromium it contributes, in a small way, to the alloys
oxidation resistance at higher steam temperatures. However lower levels of silicon benefit weld toughness.
Weld deposits generally have silicon levels in the range 0.2% to 0.3%.

Table 1. Typical T/P92 weld metal deposit compositions (wt%) [5]

Element C Mn Si S P Cr Ni Mo W Nb V N Al B
P92 alloy min 0.07 0.30 - - - 8.50 - 0.30 1.50 0.04 0.15 0.030 - 0.001
P92 alloy max 0.13 0.60 0.50 0.010 0.020 9.50 0.40 0.60 2.00 0.09 0.25 0.070 0.040 0.006
GTAW/SAW
0.11 0.71 0.29 0.008 0.009 9.0 0.5 0.5 1.7 0.06 0.20 0.05 <0.01 0.003
wire[a]
GTAW deposit 0.10 0.70 0.23 0.006 0.007 9.0 0.5 0.5 1.7 0.05 0.17 0.04 <0.01 0.002
SMAW
0.11 0.60 0.25 0.008 0.008 9.0 0.6 0.5 1.7 0.05 0.20 0.05 <0.01 0.003
deposit[b]
FCAW
0.11 0.80 0.29 0.006 0.017 9.0 0.5 0.5 1.7 0.04 0.20 0.04 <0.01 0.003
deposit[c]
SAW deposit[d] 0.10 0.76 0.29 0.005 0.010 8.8 0.5 0.5 1.7 0.04 0.17 0.04 0.015 0.001
Notes:

2
[a]: Analysis of GTAW/SAW solid wires;
[b]: Analysis of undiluted weld deposit from SMAW electrode;
[c]: Analysis of undiluted weld deposit from FCAW; Shielding gas: Ar + 20%CO2;
[d]: Analysis of undiluted weld deposit from SAW.

3. P92 weld metal phase transformation temperatures

Under controlled heating and cooling conditions, the relevant phase transformation temperatures of T/P92 base
material are typically: reaustenitisation temperature (Ac1) = 840C-845C, martensite start temperature (Ms) =
400C, martensite finish temperature (Mf) = 200C [3,7]. For the optimum balance of creep properties and
toughness, the weld metal compositions differ slightly from the parent steel. In order to provide correct
guidance for appropriate welding procedures, it is necessary to understand the phase transformation
characteristics of the deposited weld metals. Using a dilatometry technique, Ac1, Ms and Mf temperatures of
undiluted SMAW, SAW and FCAW P92 weld deposits were measured. The specimens were re-austenitised at
1100C with a heating rate of 2C/min. The specimen was held at the austenitisation temperature for two
minutes to ensure a uniform full austenitic microstructure before cooling. The Ms and Mf temperatures were
assessed at two different 800C-500C cooling rates, 20C/sec and 50C/sec, which were selected to represent
the range of typical weld cooling rates.

3.1. Weld metal Ac1 temperature and effect of alloying elements

The measurement results of Ac1 temperature are plotted in Figure 1. Data for both T/P91 and T/P92 are shown;
the base material values are taken from published data [3, 8]. It can be seen that the typical Ac1 temperature
of P92 weld metal with the range of compositions given in Table 1 is between 800C 815C. In the cases of
base steels, the Ac1 temperature of T/P92 is higher than that of T/P91. The measured Ac1 values of P92 weld
metals followed the same trend. With a similar level of Ni+Mn, the Ac1 temperature of P92 weld deposit is
10C to 15C higher than that of P91 weld deposits. This agrees with the results from thermal dynamic
calculations [9].

As the Ni+Mn content increases, the Ac1 temperature is reduced; at 1.5% Ni+Mn the Ac1 temperature is
~790C. Beyond this level, the Ac1 temperature continues to drop and the relationship gradually becomes
non-linear. By the time the Ni+Mn is increased to ~2% the Ac1 temperature is reduced to ~735C in T/P92
weld deposits; this indicates the importance of strictly controlling the Ni+Mn content in the P92 weld metals.
Many T/P91 weld metal specifications have a maximum Ni+Mn of 1.5% and if this is applied to T/P92 then
with an Ac1 temperature of ~790C and a safety margin of 15C, it would dictate a maximum PWHT
temperature of ~775C. This is higher than the figure of 760C normally specified as the maximum for T/P91
weld metals with up to 1.5% Ni+Mn.

Due to the strong effect of nickel on Ac1 temperature, cobalt is also added to some P92 weld metals to
partially, or even completely replace Ni to achieve stable ambient toughness. In the current work, the effect of
cobalt on the Ac1 temperature was also assessed. Despite there being some reports that believed that Co has
negligible effect on the Ac1 temperature the results in Figure 2 clearly show that although not as dramatic as Ni
and Mn, Co does reduce the Ac1 temperature of T/P92 weld metals. There is some other evidence that Co
reduces the Ac1 temperature based on predictive work carried out by ORNL on a 12%Cr alloy. This work
indicated that for a 1%Co addition in a 12%Cr alloy there would be a reduction in the Ac1 temperature of ~7C
[10].

When the data is plotted as shown in Figure 3, it can be seen that Co also reduces the Ac1 temperature. The
strength of its effect is about 40% of that Ni and Mn have on the Ac1 temperature of T/P92 weld metals. These
results indicate that when using Co to replace Ni in P92 weld metal, the addition of the element should also be
controlled. The recommendation is that, for a Ac1>790C, the overall content of Ni+Mn+0.4Co should be
limited to 1.5% maximum. This level should be further controlled to less than 1.4% if a Ac1 temperature of

3
800C is required.

3.2. Weld metal Ms and Mf temperatures

According to the data from base material manufacturers on continuous cooling after austenitisation at
1050C-1070C, the temperature for martensitic transformation (Ms) of T/P92 is ~400C, and the martensite
completion temperature (Mf) is about 200C [3, 7]. Table 2 shows the results for both P91 and P92 weld metals
from processes of SMAW, FCAW and SAW. For T/P92 weld metals the Ms temperatures were all in the range
370C -390C and the Mf temperatures 105C -150C; the Mf temperatures being 20C -40C lower at the
faster cooling rate of 50C/sec. Generally the Ms and Mf temperatures for P92 were lower than for P91 weld
metal deposits.

860
Metrode P92 weld metals
Other P92 weld metals
840 Metrode P91 weld metals
Other P91 weld metals
P92 base material
820
Ac1 temperature, C

P91 base material

800
Figure 1. Ac1 temperatures
of P92 and P91weld metals
780
and the effect of Ni+Mn
760
content
740 Composition for
comparison

720
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Ni+Mn, wt%

860
P92 weld metals
840 Metrode P91 weld metals
Other P91 weld metals
820 P92 base material
Ac1 temperature, C

P91 base material

800
1.1%Co Figure 2. Effect of Ni and
780 1.1%Co 0.9%Co
Mn on Ac1 temperature of
760
P92 weld metals
740 0.83%Ni+1.21%Mn

720 0.9%Ni+0.65%Mn
+2%Co
700
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Ni+Mn, wt%

4
 860
P92 weld metals
840 Metrode P91 weld metals
Other P91 weld metals
820 P92 base material
Ac1 temperature, C

P91 base material

800
Figure 3. Effect of NiMn
780
and Co on Ac1 temperature
760
of P92 weld metals
740 0.83%Ni+1.21%Mn

720
0.9%Ni+0.65%Mn+2%Co

700
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Ni+Mn+0.4Co, wt%

Table 2. Martensitic transformation temperatures (Ms and Mf) of P91and P92weld metals

Cooling Rate = 20C/s Cooling Rate = 50C/s

Alloy Welding process
Ms, C Mf, C Ms, C Mf, C
SMAW 402 167 407 128
P91 SAW 419 200 426 136
FCAW 381 157 385 107
SMAW 383 151 382 117
P92 SAW 385 147 388 105
FCAW 382 127 371 105

4. Selection of welding parameters

4.1Preheat and inter-pass temperatures
The welding of T/P92 steel requires the use of preheat to avoid the risk of hydrogen cracking. Although the
hardenability of P92 is higher than that of P22 (2Cr-1Mo) steel and slightly greater than that of P91, the
preheat required to eliminate hydrogen cracking in the Y-groove test is lower than that required for P22 and
only slightly higher than that required for P91, as shown in Figure 4 [10]. This may be explained by the lower
transformation temperatures of both P92 and P91 combined with the beneficial influence of a little retained
austenite within the preheat / inter-pass temperature range.

A preheat of 200C is standard irrespective of material thickness except for some GTAW applications. The
preheat can be relaxed to about 100C -150C for GTAW welding which has a very low diffusible hydrogen
potential. Maximum inter-pass temperature is usually restricted to about 300C to ensure that each weld bead
substantially transforms to martensite which will be partially tempered by subsequent beads. An inter-pass
temperature of 300C keeps the weld metal within the Ms-Mf temperature range of 105-390C and therefore
ensures that at least substantial proportion of martensite transformation occurs for each weld bead that is
deposited.

5
 (P92) (P22)
(P122)
Cracking ratio, %

(P91) Figure 4. Y-groove test

result of P92 weld metal
and comparison with other
Cr-Mo steels, including
P91, P22 and P122 [11]

Pre-heat temperature, C

4.2Control of the cooling after welding

As was seen in section 3.2, at a relatively fast cooling rate, the martensite finish temperature (Mf) of P92 weld
metal can be as low as 105C. This means that in order to ensure full martensite transformation the welded joint
must be cooled to below 100C before PWHT is carried out. If the weld metal is not allowed to fully transform
before PWHT is conducted then any retained austenite will transform to untempered martensite on cooling to
room temperature after PWHT.

Post-heat is a term used to describe the practice of maintaining the preheat temperature, ~200C, for 2-4 hours
or more for very thick fabrications, after completion of the joint. This procedure is designed to remove
hydrogen by diffusion and allow the safe cooling of thick weldments down to ambient temperature. To be
effective in P92, partial cool-out below the preheat temperature (<100C) would be necessary before applying
the post-heat to eliminate untransformed austenite before reheating for post-heat, because hydrogen is trapped
in the austenite and diffuses from it far slower than from martensite.

Fortunately, unlike the earlier higher carbon alloy X20 (12CrMoV), post-heat is not considered to be necessary
with P92 (or P91) and in practice, welds less than 50mm thick can be cooled slowly to ambient temperature
without problems. However, care should be taken to avoid mechanical and thermal shock until components
have been subjected to PWHT. For sections above 50mm the current recommendation is to cool no lower than
80C [3].

5. Selection of PWHT procedure and the significance of Ac1 temperature

At normal welding cooling condition, the hardness of as-transformed martensitic T/P92 weld metal and
coarse-grained HAZ is similar to T/P91 at around 400-450HV so that PWHT is viewed as mandatory
irrespective of thickness. On completion of welding it is important to cool down to below about 100C before
full PWHT; this ensures that the martensite transformation is completed prior to PWHT and resultant tempering
(see section 4.2).

There are certain constraints placed on the selection of a suitable PWHT temperature. The minimum
temperature should not be less than the 730C given in the ASME code but in practice for weld metal tempering
to take place within a reasonable period of time, the temperature needs to be significantly above this minimum.
When Ni+Mn is controlled to <1.5%, as indicated in Figure 1, the Ac1 of P92 weld metal is typically in the
range of 800C-815C. Therefore the maximum allowed PWHT temperature is slightly higher than that of
P91 weld. One base material manufacturer tempers base material in the range 750-780C [3]. Some
specifications give a maximum temperature but in any case PWHT should not exceed the Ac1 temperature since

6
this will result in the formation of fresh austenite and therefore untempered martensite on subsequent cool-out.
The data presented in section 3.1 indicates that ~775C is the suggested maximum PWHT temperature for a
weld with Ni+Mn = 1.5%. This results in a rather narrow allowable PWHT temperature range and 760C is
the most frequently selected PWHT temperature; although as will be shown in section 6 temperatures up to
780C have been used and good impact properties achieved, which would indicate that the Ac1 temperature had
not been exceeded. In practice, there have been reports that, when welding thick-section P92 main steam
pipes, major boiler fabricators have been using PWHT at 770C and holding for 6-8 hours, which produced
satisfactory weld metal properties.

6. Weld metal toughness

It can be argued that the ambient temperature toughness of P92 weld metal, which is designed to operate in the
temperature range 500C-625C, is an irrelevant consideration since this is far above the temperature where
there is any risk of fast brittle fracture. However there are situations where components might be pressurised or
loaded structurally at ambient temperatures during testing or construction. One example is hydro-testing, which
depending on code requirements, may be carried out at a temperature between 0C and +30C. ASME
guidelines recommend a minimum hydro-test temperature of +20C.

To cater for these situations, it is considered by some authorities that the weld metal should exceed a minimum
toughness at +20C. There are as yet no national specifications for T/P92 welding consumables but the
non-mandatory appendix to A5.5 proposes that suitable test criteria can be agreed between purchaser and
supplier if required. On the other hand, the European specification BS EN 1599:1997 requires a minimum
average value of 47J and a minimum single value of 38J at +20C for T/P91 SMAW weld metal. It is possible
that future specified values for T/P92 will be of a similar magnitude but reference to data published by the same
authors [5] will show that such levels may be difficult to achieve with some consumables in combination with
realistic PWHT temperatures and times. The PWHT temperatures and times given in the report [5] are both
greater than those used for P91 and reflect the higher tempering resistance of P92 weld metal. As was stated
before, the PWHT temperature is limited by the Ac1 temperature and the PWHT times reflect practical and
economic considerations. In addition it may be difficult to justify the need for higher Charpy values than those
specified in the same BS EN standard for X20 (12CrMoV), a well-established weld metal with a requirement of
34J average and 22J minimum single value at +20C.

6.1. Effect of welding procedure and PWHT on weld metal toughness

Although T/P92 consumables are not covered by AWS specifications, the basis of the welding procedures used
in AWS A5.5 / A5.23 have been used to assess the effect of welding procedure and PWHT on the impact
properties of both MMA and SAW deposits. Four welds were made with 3.2mm diameter SMAW electrodes
(identified as welds A to D) and were all PWHT at 760C for 5 hours, the details of the welds are given in Table
3. There were also three submerged are welds made with 2.4mm diameter wire using different welding
parameters (identified as welds E to G) which were subjected to different PWHT, the details of the welds are
given in Table 4.

From the data presented in Table 3, it can be seen that there is some variation in the toughness achieved with the
different welding procedures although not as much as might be expected. The AWS type procedure, weld A,
and the thick full width weave, weld C, gave the lowest toughness. The AWS procedure is often expected to
achieve the best toughness because the Charpy specimen is notched in the weld bead overlap region where
maximum refinement is expected. In this instance the AWS procedure (weld A) is probably not achieving as
consistent weld bead refinement as procedures B and D, because in procedure D the very thin layers allow
almost complete and uniform refinement of the previous weld beads and in weld B although the layer thickness
is greater than weld A (2.1mm compared to 1.8mm) there are more beads and probably greater overall
refinement. In reality the stringer beads used in weld B are easier to control than the thin layers used in weld D

7
so from a practical viewpoint the stringer bead approach is far easier to use.

To provide an indication of the effect of PWHT on the toughness of SMAW weld metal. Two welds were
made and PWHT at 760C for 2 hours and 5 hours. The average Charpy energy at +20C was 69J after 2 hours
and 93J after 5 hours. In summary, it should be pointed out that all welds tested produced satisfactory toughness
much above the requirements for T/P91 SMAW weld metal in BS EN 1599. This indicates the sophistication of
the latest design of P92 SMAW electrode.

The data on the SAW weld metal in Table 4 does not show quite such a clear trend. The lowest heat input
parameter, weld E, gave the lowest toughness; and the highest heat input (weld G) was not significantly
different to the intermediate heat input joint (weld F). With the lowest heat input (weld E) although the weld
metal was tempered, indicated by the lower hardness, the PWHT time and temperature had minimal effect on
the toughness. It is difficult to draw definite conclusions from this data but generally the higher temperature and
longer time do provide additional tempering, lowering the hardness; and in most cases also improving the
toughness

7. Weld metal creep properties and interpretation of test data

7.1. All weld metal creep properties and weld joint creep rupture
For an alloy designed to be used at 500-625C, the high temperature properties of T/P92 weld metal are of
considerable importance. Stress rupture tests on all-weld metal were carried out at temperatures 600C -650C.
Figure 5 shows the creep properties of P92 weld deposit and base material (for the convenience of comparison
with base material, the constant C=36 was used in the Larson-Miller index). The weld deposit data are from
specimens from representative GTAW, SMAW, FCAW and SAW processes. Results indicate that weld metal
properties are within the parent material average envelope (20% mean) and generally at or above the parent
material average.

Table 3. Effect of welding parameters and weld bead arrangement on

toughness of P92 SMAW weld metal

Charpy V impact energy and

Weld macro Welding parameters and weld bead arrangement lateral expansion[a]
20C 0C

64 (58) J 33 (28) J
Weld A Average weave, two passes per layer 0.99(0.74)mm 0.60(0.50) mm
Total 14 passes
Average layer thickness ~1.8mm
Heat input 1.2kJ/mm

77 (66) J 48 (41) J
Weld B Small weave, three passes per layer 1.19(1.04)mm 0.75(0.70) mm
Total 18passes
Average layer thickness ~2.1mm
Heat input 1.0kJ/mm

8
 63 (56) J 43 (36) J
Weld C Full width weave, 1 pass per layer 1.02(0.93)mm 0.68(0.58) mm
Total 4 passes
Average layer thickness ~3.2mm
Heat input 2.0kJ/mm

71 (64) J 46 (42) J
Weld D Full width weave, 1 pass per layer 1.10(1.07)mm 0.75(0.67) mm
Total 10 passes
Average layer thickness ~1.2mm
Heat input 1.3kJ/mm
Note:
[a]: Average Charpy energy and lateral expansion are given with the minimum value in brackets.

In reality for a 9%Cr creep resistant alloy, the creep failure of a welded joint will normally occur in the HAZ of
the base material (type IV zone). Figure 6 shows data for all-weld metal tests and for transverse weld joint
tests in T/P92. It can be seen that as tests become more representative of longer term tests the transverse
welded joint rupture stresses start to fall below both base material and weld metal values. The same trend has
been demonstrated with weld joints of other 9%Cr Cr-Mo steels, such as P91 and E911; on a Larson-Miller plot
if the weld metal data falls within a band of 20% of the base material average then the weld metal will be
strong enough that failure will occur in the type IV in the HAZ (Figure 7). At lower Larson-Miller parameters
the transverse joints fail at the fusion line but as the tests become longer and more representative of service
conditions the failure starts to occur in the type IV zone. As failure occurs in the type IV zone, the data
crosses the base material average -20% line. This provides a good indication that as long as the weld metal
strength falls within a band 20% of the average base material creep strength then it will be acceptable.

Table 4. Effect of welding parameters, weld bead arrangement and PWHT on

impact toughness and hardness of P92 SAW weld metal

PWHT and tempering parameters{b}

Charpy V impact energy at +20C, average (minimum) and average hardness
Welding parameters[a]
760C/4h 770C/4h 780C/4h 760C/10h
(P=21.29) (P=21.49) (P=21.70) (P=21.70)
Weld E21 passes
3127J 2622J 2824J 3429J
Heat input=1.1kJ/mm[a]
243HV 235HV 238HV 222HV
Average layer thickness ~2.9mm;
Weld E17 passes
7669J 5242J 7462J 6256J
Heat input=1.8kJ/mm[a]
241HV 238HV 233HV 219HV
Average layer thickness ~2.5mm;
Weld G11 passes
5134J 5246J 8671J 7349J
Heat input=2.5kJ/mm[a]
231HV 241HV 228HV 222HV
Average layer thickness ~3.6mm;
Note
[a]: Weld E: Current 350A; voltage 30V; travel speed 600mm/min;
Weld F: Current 450A; voltage 30V; travel speed 450mm/min;

9
 Weld G: Current 550A; voltage 30V; travel speed 390mm/min;
[b]: P is the Larson-Miller Parameter, P = K(20 + log t)10-3 where K = temperature in K and t = time in hours.

1000
o 5
565 C/10 hr
P=34.36 o 5
600 C/10 hr
+20% P=35.80
Rupture Stress, MPa

o 5
625 C/10 hr
P=36.82
-20%

100 Figure 5. Larson-Miller plot of

P92 base metal and weld metals
P92 SMAW weld metal with C=36
P92 SAW weld metal
P92 FCAW weld metal
P92 base material average
10
31.0 32.0 33.0 34.0 35.0 36.0 37.0 38.0
-3
P = K(36+Logt)x10

7.2. Interpretation and understanding of creep data of P92 steel and weld metal

Because of its superior creep properties, the application of T/P92 steel has made it possible for USC units to
operate at temperatures up to 600C-630C and pressures of 300bar. In the past 3-4 years, with the building of a
considerable number of 1000MW USC units, the usage of T/P92 steel has increased substantially. However, it
should be pointed out that, as a newly developed alloy, exploitation of T/P92 steel is still relatively limited.
Further confidence and experience in the alloy, particularly its performance after long term operation at high

1000 1000
o 5
565oC/105hr 565 C/10 hr
P=34.36 o 5
P=29.33 o 5
600 C/10 hr 600 C/10 hr
+20%
Rupture Stress, MPa

+20% P=35.80
Rupture Stress, MPa

P=30.56
625oC/105hr 650oC/105hr
P=36.82 P=31.44
-20% -20%

100 100

E911 weld joint (fail at FL)

E911 weld joint (fail Type IV-FL)
P92 welded joint
E911 weld joint (fail at Type IV)
P92 all-weld metals
E911 all-weld metals
P92 base material average E911 base material average
10 10
31.0 32.0 33.0 34.0 35.0 36.0 37.0 38.0 26.0 27.0 28.0 29.0 30.0 31.0 32.0 33.0
-3
P = K(36+Logt)x10 P = K(30+Logt)x10-3

Figure 6 P92 transverse joint tests in comparison Figure 7. E911 transverse joint tests in comparison
with all-weld metal and base material (C=36 with all-weld metal and base material (C=30)

temperatures and pressures has yet to be established; therefore, appropriate interpretation of currently available
data is essential for the successful application of this important alloy. Over the years since T/P92 was first
introduced in mid 1990s [17], the allowable stresses and creep rupture strength have been re-evaluated as new
test data becomes available. For example, in 1999 the European Creep Collaborative Commission (ECCC)
published a data sheet on P92 which showed a 100,000 hour creep rupture stress at 600C of 123MPa [18], a
reduction of 8MPa from the original 131MPa. In 2005 a new data sheet was published for P92 by the ECCC
[19] which further modified the 100,000 hour creep rupture stress at 600C downwards to 113MPa. This is a
total reduction of ~14% from the originally extrapolation value. The ASME code case 2179-6 (2006) [20] has
also modified the allowable design stresses for P92 downwards compared to the 1994 code case. For example,
the 593C allowable design stress was reduced from 94MPa to 83MPa.

A convenient means of displaying the creep data is to use a Larson-Miller plot. This allows tests carried out at

10
different temperatures to be displayed on the same plot, providing the appropriate constant is used.

In evaluating P92 creep data, for quite some time, constant C = 32.6-36 have been commonly used [3, 7, 11,
21]. Based on recent test results and actual operation experience of T/P92 and T/P122 steels, it has been
mentioned that with a Larson-Miller constant of 36, the longer term extrapolations may over estimate the
potential creep performance of the alloy. Figure 8 illustrates the estimated duration to soften as the increase of C
for creep resistant alloys [13,14]. Examination believes that the creep softening rates of T/P92 and T/P122
steels are very likely faster than the estimation using C=30-36. A constant less than 30 has therefore been
recommended. The two consecutive revisions of the creep strength to T/P92 alloy in the past 8 years reflected
the timely correction to the earlier over-estimated performance. In fact, in the current COST 522 and 536
projects, a Larson-Miller constant of C=25 has been used to evaluate the data for the next generation 9-15%Cr
ferritic creep resistant alloys, such as C(F)B2 alloy [22]. Without doubt, this development improved our
understanding of the performance of this new advanced alloy and produced more realistic creep strength
predictions. However, the price paid is that some recently built USC power plants now have to be operated at
reduced parameters than they were originally designed for; and some other units under fabrication required
modifications to their designs, e.g. increase the thickness of some critical components to suit the specified
operating temperature and pressure.

Using a constant of 30 and 25, the base material and weld metal creep data are re-plotted, Figure 9 and 10.
When compared to Figure 5, it can be seen that when C=25, which would provide a pessimistic evaluation of
the data (Figure 10), the weld metal data tends to fall in the lower band of the base material range but still above
-20% line whereas with C=36 (Figure 5) the weld metal data falls on or above the base material average line.
This helps provide some reassurance that even when using a pessimistic extrapolation the weld metal still
provides satisfactory creep performance compared to the base material.

10000000
Hours to Soften

1000000 Figure 8. Estimated duration of

alloy strength start softening vs
Larson-Miller constant [13.14]
100000
(Operating temperature: 615C;
Tempering temperature: 760C
10000
20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36
Larson Miller Constant

1000 o 5
565 C/10 hr
P=34.36 o
600 C/10 hr
5

+20% P=35.80 o 5
625 C/10 hr
Rupture Stress, MPa

P=36.82
-20%

100 Figure 9. Larson-Miller

plot of P92 base metal and
P92 SMAW weld metal
P92 SAW weld metal weld metals with C=30
P92 FCAW weld metal
P92 base material average
10
26.0 27.0 28.0 29.0 30.0 31.0 32.0 33.0
-3
P = K(30+Logt)x10

11
 1000
o 5
565 C/10 hr
P=25.14 600oC/105hr
+20% P=26.19
Rupture Stress, MPa
o 5
625 C/10 hr
P=26.94
-20%

100 Figure 10. Larson-Miller

P92 SMAW weld metal

plot of P92 base metal and
P92 SAW weld metal) weld metals with C=25
P92 FCAW weld metal
P92 base material average
10
22.0 23.0 24.0 25.0 26.0 27.0 28.0 29.0
-3
P = K(25+Logt)x10

8. Conclusions
As one of the most important new base materials for USC power plant, T/P92 offers improved creep properties
over other current Cr-Mo steels, and has been used on a considerable scale. Matching welding consumables
have also been developed and used in the shop fabrication and site erection of USC units.

Actual measurements of the phase transformation temperatures were conducted on T/P92 all-weld deposits. The
Ac1 temperature of the weld metals with optimised analyses is typically between 800C-815C. Ni, Mn and Co
all reduce the Ac1 temperature of the P92 weld metal, with Co having ~40% the effect that Ni and Mn have. As
long as Ni+Mn (or Ni+Mn+0.4Co) is controlled to 1.5% maximum, the Ac1 temperature of the weld deposit
will be high enough to allow PWHT to be carried out at 760C and tests using a PWHT temperature as high as
780C have also proved to be satisfactory. However, a temperature above 780C is not recommended.

The Ms temperature of P92 weld metals is in the range 370C-390C, while the minimum Mf temperature was
measured at 105C. These indicate that weld joints should be cooled below 100C to allow a full martensite
transformation before PWHT, and that the weld joint should be kept in the temperature range 200C-300C
during the whole process of welding.

Both welding procedure and PWHT were shown to have an effect on weld metal ambient temperature
toughness. There were some inconsistencies in the results but generally better and more uniform refinement of
the weld metal and higher tempering parameters are beneficial in achieving higher toughness.

P92 welding consumables discussed in the current work demonstrated satisfactory creep properties. The weld
metals were shown to have creep strength that was within a 20% band of the base material average. Even
when using a more pessimistic Larson-Miller constant (C=25), their creep performance matched that of T/P92
base alloy.

Reference:
[1] H J R Blum and J Hald:Development of High-efficiency USC Power Plants in Denmark, Conference
Proceedings: Advanced Steam Plant New Materials and Plant Designs and their Practical Implications for Future
CCGT and Conventional Power Stations, pp.3-16, London, UK, 21-22 May 1997.
[2] W Bendick, F Deshayes, K Harrmann and J C Vaillant: Conference ProceedingsEPRI Conference on Advanced
Heat Resistant Steels for Power Generation, San Sebastian, Spain, April 1998.
[3] D Richardot, J C Vaillant, A Arbab and W Bendick:The T92/P92 Book, Vallourec & Mannesmann Tubes, 2000.
[4] A Arbab, J C Vaillant and B Vandenberghe: Conference Proceedings: 3rd EPRI Conference on Advances in
Material Technology for Fossil Power Plants, Edited by R Viswanathan et al, pp.99-112, London, UK, The Institute
of Materials, 2001.
[5] Metrode Products Limited: P92 Welding Consumables for the Power Generation Industry, Issue 2, Aug 2005.
[6] A W Marshall and Z Zhang: COST 522 Project Final Report:Development of Welding Consumables for
Advanced Cr-Mo Creep Resistance Steels, Metrode Products Limited, September 2003.

12
[7] H NaoiH MimuraM OhgamH MorimotoT TanakaY Yazaki and T FujitaNF616 Pipe Production and
Welding Consumable Development; Conference Proceedings: The EPRI/National Power Conference - New Steels
for Advanced Plant up to 620C, Edited by Metcalfe E, pp.8-29, London, UK, May 1995.
[8] H Harrmann, J C Vaillant, B Vandenberghe, W Bendick and A Arbab:The T91/P91 Book, 2nd Edition, Vallourec
& Mannesmann Tubes, 2002.
[9] F Masuyama, T Daikoku, H Haneda, et al: United States Patent, No. 4,799,972, January 1989.
[10] J P Shingledecker: Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), private conversation, July 2007.
[11] F Masuyama and T Yokoyama:NF616 Fabrication Trials in Comparison with HCM12A; Conference
Proceedings: The EPRI/National Power Conference-New Steels for Advanced Plant up to 620C, Edited by Metcalfe
E, pp30-55, London, UK, May 1995.
[12] B Swindeman: Presentation at the ASME Properties of Weldments Subgroup Meeting, Nashville, Dec 2001.
[13] K Kimura:Long-term Creep Strength Assessment for Creep Strength Enhanced Ferritic Steels, Presentation
at TG Creep Strength Enhanced Ferritic Steels, ASME Boiler Code Week, Los Angeles, USA, August 2005.
[14] M Prager:Understanding Advanced Ferritic Alloys, Presentation at, Seminar on High Temperature Alloys,
Edmonton, Canada, November 2006.
[15] F Abe:Metallurgy for Long-term Stabilization of Ferritic Steels for Thick Section Boiler Components in USC
Power Plant at 650C, Conference Proceedings: Materials for Advanced Power Engineering 2006, Edited by J
Lecomte-Beckers, M Carton, F Schubert and P J Ennis, Julich, Belgium, pp.965-980, September 2006.
[16] N Komai and F Masuyama:Microstructural Degradation of the HAZ in 11Cr-9.4Mo-2W-V-Nb-Cu Steel
(P122) during Creep, ISIJ International, Vol. 42 (2002), No.12, pp.1354-1370, 2002.
[17] Cases for ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Case 2179, Approval Date: August 1994.
[18] ECCCWG3.2:ECCC Data Sheets 1999, 1999
[19] ECCCWG3A:ECCC Data Sheets 2005, 2005;
[20] Cases for ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Case 2179-6, Approval Date: August 2006.
[21] F Masuyama:ASME Code Approval for NF616 and HCM12A, Conference Proceedings: The EPRI/National
Power Conf. - New Steels for Advanced Plant up to 620C, Edited by Metcalfe E, pp98-113, London, May 1995.
[22] M Staubli:COST 522-Power Generation into the 21st Century; Advanced Steam Power Plant, COST 522
Steam Power Plant, Final Report, October 2003.

13