Discussion on SA387 material issues
Thread Content
This post was last edited by lflsedin on 2018-10-14 at 16:14. The material used in vaporization furnaces is often SA387Gr11Cl2, which is a standard designation from abroad; however, in China, 14Cr1MoR is now commonly used as a substitute for SA387. Both of these materials contain 1.25Cr–0.5Mo. Is there anyone who is very familiar with the names of these two materials? Are there any differences between 14Cr1MoR and SA387Gr11Cl2? Could you give a detailed introduction? Are all domestically produced plates 14Cr1MoR?
In fact, 14Cr1MoR can be regarded as the domestic equivalent of SA387Gr11Cl2 (not SA387); their mechanical properties and chemical compositions are essentially the same. However, the chemical composition requirements specified in the ASME standards are relatively loose, while the standards in China require more precise levels for each element. It can be said that, based solely on chemical composition and without considering additional requirements, 14Cr1MoR produced by steel mills can meet the specifications of SA387Gr11Cl2; however, SA387Gr11Cl2 produced in this way may not necessarily satisfy the requirements of 14Cr1MoR. Gasification furnaces generally require thick plates. Traditionally, due to issues with the quality of domestically produced thick plates, their use has been relatively limited; instead, SA387Gr11Cl2 was more commonly used. Meanwhile, the ASME standards are more flexible and comprehensive, with more detailed additional requirements, which is why SA387Gr11Cl2 is used more frequently. Personally, I think that for diameters below 60 mm, 14CrMoR together with additional requirements can fully meet the requirements. It’s hard to say for sizes over 60mm; there are many influencing factors – it’s not necessarily just a matter of the grade, but also factors such as whether the product is domestic or imported.
Add me on QQ and I’ll send you a material list so you can compare it
What you said makes sense; it seems that 110MM thick plates are sufficient for domestic use now. I would also like to know whether our domestically produced SA387Gr11Cl2 is actually the same as 14Cr1MoR – is that correct? I’m not sure if you understand.
It can’t be said that way; the domestically produced SA387Gr11Cl2 is a steel material manufactured in accordance with ASME standards, meeting the relevant requirements of ASME. However, the requirements for 14CrMo1R in China are more precise and stringent; manufacturing according to ASME standards does not necessarily meet these national standards. However, it cannot be said that national standards are better, as the ASME specifications offer greater flexibility; in particular, for this type of steel, many additional requirements are stipulated based on the characteristics of the equipment itself, such as J factors, X factors, impact energy, simulations of post-weld heat treatment, tensile testing, and various other requirements. Therefore, these two types of steel are not simply in a relationship of equality or inequality; they need to be treated separately. As for a thickness of 110 mm, I don’t think there are many production issues in China at present. However, many users are concerned about the stability of quality, so they prefer to import products. Additionally, since there aren’t many specific requirements for domestic grades, and even when such requirements do exist, there are issues related to compliance with standards; therefore, ASME grades are generally used.
Are there any comparative materials on this topic?