rvivac
Petroleum
- Nov 9, 2012
- 18
I have a carbon steel (CS) use at high temperatures issue here . We are just finishing the construction of a Reformer Furnace for a Hydrogen Generating Unit. The designer / supplier used ASTM A36 on an expansion joint on a breeching duct that is subjected to a 515°C stream.
It is fact that the item 12.5.4 of the API 560 says that on temperatures above 425°C, stainless steel (SS) or alloy steels (AS) shall be used, instead of carbon steel due to graphitization and loss of ductility that occurs on this type of material at temperatures above 425°C.
On the other side, the supplier tried to convince us that, since the part is not subjected to stress, the API STD 530 (2008) allows the use of grade B CS’s up to 540°C, since it is the limiting design metal temperature. Note that the API STD 530 scope is for Heater-tube Thickness. They tried to convince us that since the A36 have similar properties of the API 283 Grade C, it can be used like an Grade B in this situation. I did not accept that.
I have seen that this kind of design misunderstanding is common, at least, on our refineries and the maintenance people have to inspect and monitor this kind of joints forever, adding cost and cautions to the process. I would kindly like to know how you deal with these situations and if it is a common design misunderstanding.
It is fact that the item 12.5.4 of the API 560 says that on temperatures above 425°C, stainless steel (SS) or alloy steels (AS) shall be used, instead of carbon steel due to graphitization and loss of ductility that occurs on this type of material at temperatures above 425°C.
On the other side, the supplier tried to convince us that, since the part is not subjected to stress, the API STD 530 (2008) allows the use of grade B CS’s up to 540°C, since it is the limiting design metal temperature. Note that the API STD 530 scope is for Heater-tube Thickness. They tried to convince us that since the A36 have similar properties of the API 283 Grade C, it can be used like an Grade B in this situation. I did not accept that.
I have seen that this kind of design misunderstanding is common, at least, on our refineries and the maintenance people have to inspect and monitor this kind of joints forever, adding cost and cautions to the process. I would kindly like to know how you deal with these situations and if it is a common design misunderstanding.