Reheat Cracking Susceptibility Assessment for Reactor Welds

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Current methods for determining reheat cracking susceptibility in large reactors, such as those made of 2.25Cr-1Mo-0.25V steel, provide only qualitative results and cannot accurately reproduce the heat treatments and stresses experienced during fabrication, leading to inadequate assessment of reheat cracking risk.

Innovation Solution

A method involving the selection of samples from real welding joints, subjected to heat treatments and stresses similar to those in operational reactors, using strain gauges and thermocouples to measure elongation and temperature, and analyzing fracture surfaces with SEM to quantify reheat cracking susceptibility, allowing for the optimization of welding and heat treatment parameters.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Measurement precision

If conventional qualitative tests (e.g., Gleeble test) are used to assess reheat cracking susceptibility, then the assessment process is simple, but the measurement precision and reliability are insufficient

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvereheat cracking susceptibility assessment accuracyVSAvoidtest system complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
Measurement precisionVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent replaces conventional mechanical/qualitative testing methods with a computational model that uses finite element analysis to simulate the welding process, heat treatment, and stress evolution. This substitution of mechanical testing with computational simulation enables quantitative assessment of reheat cracking susceptibility while maintaining practical applicability.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #28Mechanics substitution (Replace mechanical system)

Solution Approach 2:

The patent changes the assessment approach from qualitative observation to quantitative measurement by introducing specific parameters: equivalent elastic-plastic stress, creep strain, and a reheat cracking susceptibility index. These parameter transformations enable precise numerical assessment rather than subjective qualitative evaluation.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

2Reliability

If existing test methods are used, then the testing procedure is straightforward, but they cannot accurately reproduce the heat treatments and stresses experienced during fabrication

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveassessment reliabilityVSAvoidsimulation model complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent performs preliminary action by simulating the welding process and heat treatment conditions before actual fabrication or testing. The computational model predicts residual stresses, temperature distribution, and creep strain accumulation in advance, allowing assessment of reheat cracking susceptibility before physical prototypes are built or tested.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

Solution Approach 2:

The patent creates a virtual copy of the reactor component and its fabrication process through finite element modeling. This digital twin reproduces the welding sequence, heat treatment parameters, and stress conditions, enabling realistic simulation of reheat cracking behavior without requiring physical testing of actual components.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #26Copying

3Stress or pressure

If large reactor dimensions are used to meet service requirements, then the reactor can withstand higher temperatures and pressures, but the welding residual stresses and reheat cracking risk increase

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvereactor operating pressure and temperature resistanceVSAvoidwelding residual stress and reheat cracking
Core Design Contradiction:
Stress or pressureVSObject-affected harmful factors

Solution Approach 1:

The patent applies preliminary action by using the computational model to predict and identify high-risk welding joints before fabrication. The simulation results guide the welding sequence optimization and heat treatment parameter selection in advance, preventing reheat cracking before it occurs in the actual large-scale reactor construction.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

Solution Approach 2:

The patent introduces feedback by using the simulation results to iteratively optimize welding parameters and heat treatment conditions. The reheat cracking susceptibility index provides quantitative feedback that guides adjustments to welding sequences, heat input parameters, and stress relief treatment conditions, continuously improving the assessment and mitigation strategy.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #23Feedback

Applied Scientific Principles

This section explains which scientific principles are used to turn an abstract innovation direction into a practical engineering solution.

Function Achieved in This Case

This approach enables the quantitative assessment of reheat cracking susceptibility, allowing for the selection of materials and welding parameters that reduce the risk of reheat cracking, improving the quality and reliability of reactor components by identifying potential flaws before production.

Implementation Method 1

using strain gauges and thermocouples to measure elongation and temperature

Methodology Applied
Scientific EffectStrain gauge measurement: Piezoresistive Effect

Implementation Method 2

using strain gauges and thermocouples to measure elongation and temperature

Methodology Applied
Scientific EffectThermocouple measurement: Seebeck Effect

Implementation Method 3

analyzing fracture surfaces with SEM to quantify reheat cracking susceptibility

Methodology Applied
Scientific EffectScanning electron microscopy: Electron Beam

Data Source

PatentEP2163881B1Method for determining reheat cracking susceptibility
Publication Date: 2021.04.21 NUOVO PIGNONE TECH - SRL
  • EP2163881B1 patent drawingFigure 1
  • EP2163881B1 patent drawingFigure 2
  • EP2163881B1 patent drawingFigure 3

AI summary

System and method for determining a susceptibility of a sample (26) of material, which includes a welded area (20), to reheat cracking. The method includes measuring a length of the sample (26), applying a first stress to the sample (26) to achieve a predetermined elongation of the sample (26), exposing the elongated sample (26) to a predefined heat treatment, applying a second stress to the sample (26) until the sample breaks at least into two different pieces (30, 40), and determining the susceptibility of the broken sample (26) to reheat cracking.