Page 292 - Failure Analysis Case Studies II
P. 292

277






                                    FAILURE  OF  AUSTENITIC  STAINLESS STEEL
                                 COMPONENTS USED  IN  NITROGEN OXIDE  PLANT

                                    V. M. J. SHARMA, A. K. JHA, P. RAMESH NARAYANAN,
                                          S. ARUMUGHAM and T. S. LAKSHMANAN*
                              Material Characterisation Division, Materials and Metallurgy Group, Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre,
                                                  Thiruvananthapurarn, 695 022, India
                                                     (Received 2 1 March 1997)

                            Abstract-Austenitic  stainless steel components of a nitrogen oxide plant have been found to leak in service.
                            The failed  components,  namely  pipe-to-pipe  joints  and  pipe-to-flange joints,  have  been  studied through
                            standard metallographic techniques to analyse the cause of the failure. In case study I, involving the failure of
                            pipe-to-flange joints, cracking was observed in the pipe wall next to the pipe-to-flange weld. In case study 11,
                            involving the failure of a sight port flange, cracking was observed in the flange adjacent to the pipe-to-flange
                            weld. In both cases, cracking was by an intergranular mechanism, and carbon contents were much higher than
                            permitted for "L" grades of austenitic stainless steel. Q 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd
                            Keywords: Metallography, residual stress, fractography



                                                    1.  INTRODUCTION

                       Liquid propellants, with their higher specific impulse than solid propellants, have emerged as efficient
                       fuels for satellite hunch vehicles. For combustion during flight, various types of oxidizers have been
                       used. One such oxidizer is dinitrogen tetroxide (N,O,).  In view of the nonusability of  dinitrogen
                       tetroxide with  some of the  storage materials, mixed  oxide of nitrogen  (MON) has emerged as a
                       better choice. Its lower freezing point (-  14°C) makes this one of the best oxidizers. MON mainly
                       consists of a mixture of N204, NO and NO,. Further classification of MON has been done as MON-
                       3 (3% NO) and MON-10 (10% NO), depending on the content of NO. The plant, which produces
                       mixed  oxides of  nitrogen  (MON-3), consists of  reactors,  absorption  columns, collection tanks,
                       storage tanks, interconnecting piping, flanges and valves. One such plant,  commissioned 7  years
                       back, is in operation. However, for the last 2 years, leaks were observed in some of the components,
                       mainly in pipe-to-pipe joints and pipe-to-flange joints. While attempting to rectify such a leak by
                       tightening the flange, the flange broke into pieces. Various components, which have cracked and
                       leaked at different locations of the process plant, have been grouped into two categories. In the first,
                       the failure is in the pipe portion, and, in the second, the failure is in flange portion. As such, two
                       failed components, (i) a pipe-to-flange joint and (ii) a sight port flange, were selected for detailed
                       studies.




                                   2.  CASE  STUDY  I:  FAILURE  OF  PIPE-TO-FLANGE JOINT
                         The joint consists of a tube (25mm ID and 32mm OD) made of AIS1 304 L grade stainless steel
                       welded to a flange made of the same steel (Fig. 1) The joint is used to transfer HNO, from a storage
                       tank to an NO reactor. A leak was noticed in the pipe portion of the joint.



                         *Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
                       Reprinted from Engineering Fuihre Analysis 4 (3), 17 1-1 78 (1 997)
   287   288   289   290   291   292   293   294   295   296   297