binder 9

7/17/2019 Binder 9

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/binder-9 1/10

201

Celso Antonio Barbosa e Alexandre Sokolowski

REM: R. Esc. Minas, Ouro Preto, 66(2), 201-208, abr. jun. | 2013

Abstract

Nowadays super-duplex stainless is an important material for the Oil and Gasindustries, especially for off-shore production. In deep water exploitation the reliabilityof production system is very important. Corrosion resistance for pitting of the highalloyed duplex stainless steels with high Mo and N content has to be achieved even inlarge diameters bars. Therefore, the present work deals with an improved super-duplexstainless steel for the production of large diameter rolled 6bars up to 152.40 mm (6

inches). Among the main improvements, the corrosion resistance evaluated both bythe chemical method according to the ASTM G-48 method, as well as electrochemicalmethods, was achieved. During the production of such large dimensions, the precipita-tion of inter-metallics and nitrides after cooling from high temperatures was studied bychanging the chemical composition using Thermo-Calc and evaluating the new proposedchemical compositions. Several alloy compositions were laboratory scale cast, and theaustenite/ferrite balance as well as PREN pitting resistance equivalent number contentwas correlated to the microstructure and the corrosion properties obtained. It was thuspossible to determine the ideal chemical composition and define the new processingparameters to produce the UNS S32760 grade (4501) according to the Norsok standard.The new material properties produced in a production full scale heat are also presented.

Keywords: Corrosion, super-duplex stainless steel, pitting.

Resumo

Os aços inoxidáveis superduplex, atualmente, são materiais importantes para aindústria de óleo e gás, especialmente para produção off-shore. Em águas profundas,a confiabilidade do sistema de produção é muito importante. A resistência à corrosãodos aços inoxidáveis duplex de alta liga com alto teor de Mo e N, especialmente emrelação à corrosão por pite, tem de ser alcançada, até mesmo em barras com grandesdiâmetros. Portanto o presente trabalho trata de um aço inoxidável superduplex com

propriedades melhoradas para a produção de barras laminadas de grande diâmetro,ou seja, de até 152,40 milímetros (seis polegadas). Entre as principais melhorias, aresistência à corrosão, avaliada, tanto pelo método químico, de acordo com ASTM

G-48, bem como pelos métodos eletroquímicos, foi alcançada. Durante a produção

Development of UNS S 32760super-duplex stainless steelproduced in large diameterrolled bars

Desenvolvimento do aço inoxidável

super-duplex UNS S 32760 produzido

em barras laminadas de grande diâmetro

Celso Antonio Barbosa Engenheiro Metalurgista , Membro da ABM,

Diretor de Tecnologia e P&D ,

Villares Metals S. A., Sumaré - SP, Brasil.

[email protected].

Alexandre SokolowskiEngenheiro químico, Mestre em Metalurgia,

Pesquisador Sênior,

Villares Metals S.A. Sumaré, SP, Brasil.

[email protected].

Metallurgy and ma terialsINOX 2010

7/17/2019 Binder 9


202

Development of UNS S32760 super-duplex stainless steel produced in large diameter rolled bars


de tais grandes dimensões, a precipitação de intermetálicos e nitretos, após o resfria-mento das altas temperaturas, foi estudada através da alteração da composição quí-mica, usando o software Thermo-Calc e avaliando as novas composições químicas

propostas. Várias composições de ligas foram fundidas, em escala de laboratório, e oequilíbrio austenita / ferrita, bem como o PREN, número equivalente de resistênciaao pite, foram correlacionados com a microestrutura e as propriedades de corrosãoobtidas. Foi possível determinar a composição química ideal e definir os novos parâ-metros de processamento para produzir o UNS S 32760 grau (4501), de acordo com anorma NORSOK. As propriedades dos novos materiais produzidos, em uma escala

de produção industrial, também são apresentadas.

Palavras-chave: Corrosão, aço inoxidável superduplex, corrosão por pites.

1. Introduction

The excellent combination of me-chanical strength and corrosion resistancein various types of environments and thegood performance in applications foundin Oil and Gas fields makes duplex stain-less steels (DSS) an excellent choice byequipment designers IMOA (2009). The

development of more corrosion resistantgrades has led to the so called Super-duplexstainless steels (SDSS), where the chemi-cal composition is modified by increasingspecially the molybdenum and nitrogencontent, leading to a higher pitting cor-rosion resistance, evaluated by the pittingresistance equivalent number – PREN,from a typical value of 35, found in nor-mal duplex grades, to more than 40. Thisnew class of DSS can fight the more chal-lenging corrosion problems found in thenowadays deep water oil and gas reserves

where, besides temperature increases,higher H

2S and CO

2 pressures are met

(Løvland, 2003). Also, besides the super-martensitic 13Cr, the SDSS shows thebest combination of corrosion resistanceand yield strength ultrapasses 600 MPa(Barbosa, 2008). From the metallurgical

point of view and also processing char-acteristics, the SDSS production in largediameters bars is a challenge because theirattractive properties may be destroyed bythe formation of precipitates due to themore difficult thermal transfer conditionsfound in bars with diameters higher than

100 mm. The most common precipitatesare chromium nitrides Cr

2N and inter-

metallic precipitates (IP) such as sigma/chi/phase/R phases that can be formed in thetemperature range from 600 to 1000°C,depending on the thermal cooling as wellas deformation conditions imposed duringthe fabrication of large diameter bars. Themain technological properties that are ad-versely affected are the pitting corrosion re-sistance and the toughness. It is interestingto note that in the present study, althoughthe pitting corrosion resistance was dam-

aged by the presence of chromium nitrides,the minimum impact toughness was notaffected when a very small percentage of IPis present in the microstructure, confirm-ing previous work showing that to have aserious decrease in toughness several per-cent of IP is necessary (Nilsson & Kangas,

2007). Also important is the control ofthe ferrite/austenite balance (usually near50% each) that can be established by aproper compositional balance betweenferrite and austenite former elements.The knowledge of the thermodynamicand kinetics of such complex stainless

steels is a pre-condition to understandand control the formation of such undesir-able precipitates. Many of these aspectsare very well studied and documented inliterature (DUPLEX, 2007).

In order to investigate the reasonswhy corrosion resistance is sometimesaffected in the production of SDSS inlarge diameter bars over 80 mm, weconducted an extensive study in the gradeUNS S 32760 ASTM A-276 (4501), seeTable 1. The main task was to fulfill theadditional requirements found in the

Norsok standard MDS D57 Revision 3,especially regarding pitting corrosion. Theproduction bars were produced by rollingconventional cast ingots from EAF+VODprocess. After controlled rolling, thebars were water solution annealed from1120ºC.

2. Experimental Procedure

Pilot scale heats were produced inorder to verify the compositional effects

on the microstructures and corrosion aswell as to study the effect of the chemi-cal composition balance. The pilot scaleheats were produced by casting 50 kgingots from a vacuum induction furnace,with 140 mm medium cross section size.All heats were cast using the same rawmaterial and were forged together usingthe same heating condition. The chemi-cal compositions were established usingas a base the typical composition foundin heats from regular production in orderto run the thermodynamic phase simula-

tion using the software Thermo-Calc.

The ingots were further forged down to70 mm square bars with a 4:1 reduction

ratio. The chemical composition of theproduced ingots is given also in Table 1.The conventional base composition wasreproduced in the pilot scale heat and itis indicated as well as the modified ones.In the rebalanced composition the PRENnumber was increased via chromium andmolybdenum to more than 41. The contentof ferrite in the conventional steel, around57%, was reduced to around 42% in therebalanced composition in the solutionannealing temperature of 1120ºC as cal-culated by the Thermo-Calc. The higher

amount of austenite promotes a higher

ductility and toughness (Esteban, 2008).The specimens were cut from the

middle section of the 70 mm square barand exposed to pilot heats to control themicrostructure and corrosion testing. Inthe production heats the samples weretaken at different positions of the 152.40mm diameter rolled bars. The productionheats were produced by EAF+VOD and1.7 t ingot cast. The materials were watersolution annealed from 1120ºC. Thespecimens for corrosion testing accordingASTM G-48 method A (AMERICANSOCIETY FOR TESTING AND MA-TERIALS, 2007) and Norsok standard

were taken from the mid radius in the

7/17/2019 Binder 9


203



Table 1Chemical composition of super-duplex

stainless steel UNS 32760-ASTM A276standard (4501)), the pilot scale heats

and the rebalanced new production heatproduced (% in mass).

Figure 1Apparatus for determination of pitting

resistance according ASTM G-48 methodA, showing the temperature recorder of

the control thermocouples.

Steel UNS S 32760Conventional

Heat H -7263

Pilot Scale HeatsProduction Heat

RebalancedH-7441

Conventional(Average)

H-604

RebalancedH-607

C Max 0.03 0.019 0.02 0.017 0.024

Si Max 1.0 0.38 0.42 0.4 0.35

Mn Max 1.0 0.7 0.69 0.6 0.6

Cr 24 - 26 24.9 24.8 25.3 25.3

Ni 6 - 8 6.38 6.54 6.85 6.84

Mo 3 - 4 3.37 3.37 3.68 3.55

N 0.2 - 0.3 0.27 0.28 0.26 0.25

P Max 0.03 0.026 0.026 0.026 0.017

S Max 0.01 0.001 0.001 0.003 < 0.001Cu 0.5 – 1.0 0.63 0.64 0.6 0.54

W 0.5- 1.0 0.65 0.65 0.7 0.63

PREN ≥ 40.0 40.3 40.4 41.6 41.02

longitudinal direction and had the surfacepolished to # 120 grit. The temperature oftesting was continuously monitored andrecorded, as can be seen in Figure 1. Alsothe CPT-Critical Pitting Temperature wasdetermined using the potentiodynamicmethod. The determination of the criticalpitting temperature (CPT) was conductedaccording to ASTM G 150-99 (AMERI-

CAN SOCIETY FOR TESTING ANDMATERIALS, 2009) (using the samesolution recommended in ASTM G-48-03, method E). All determinations weremade in duplicate. The corrosion sampleswere submitted to optical microscopyand SEM. To identify the austenite andferrite phases, NaOH electrolytic etchant(20g NaOH and 80 ml distilled H

2O)

was applied. Light optical microscopy(LOM) was performed in a Zeiss invertedmicroscope in the transversal specimendirection. A 95% confidence interval ofthe volume fractions of ferrite, austeniteand inter-metallic phase was estimatedusing manual point counting accordingto the standardized ISO 9042 procedure.

3. Results and Discussion

The simulations using Thermo-Calc are shown in Figure 2 and 3 for thecompositions of the conventional andthe rebalanced steels. Two points shouldbe observed: the higher amount of aus-tenite in the rebalanced steel, see dottedlines in the figures corresponding to theusual solution annealing temperature of1120ºC for this grade, and the chromiumnitride precipitation is depressed to lowertemperatures (~1040ºC) relative to theconventional steel(~1190ºC). Hot process-

ing of super-duplex steels like rolling and

forging of large diameters bars should ide-ally led to conditions of finishing processtemperatures over the chromium nitridetemperature precipitation, as shown bysimulation.

Table 2 presents the amount offerrite predicted by Thermo-Calc andthe amount found in the samples of theproduction conventional and rebalancedsteels compositions, showing a good fit.

The conventional steel showed ahigh corrosion mass loss in the G-48 im-

mersion test as can be seen in Table 3 for

three different diameter bars and heatsand with heavy presence of pitting on thespecimen surface, Figure 4.

The optical microstructure andSEM of the corroded surfaces indicatedthat the pitting initiation occurred in theferrite grain boundaries, Figures 5, 6 and7. Figure 5 is the SEM examination of theG-48 corrosion specimen surface just aftertesting showing that the pitting initiationis concentrated in the ferrite grains.

At larger magnification, as showed

in Figure 6, it was possible to observe

7/17/2019 Binder 9


204



Figure 2Equilibrium microstructure constituents

predicted by the Thermo-Calc softwarefor the conventional production steelaverage composition (molar %).Dotted line indicates the solutionannealing temperature of 1120ºC.Note a predominant ferritemicrostructure is predicted.

Figure 3Equilibrium microstructure constituentspredicted by the Thermo-Calc softwarefor the rebalanced composition (molar %).Notice in line 2 the predicted temperatureof Cr

2N is depressed to lower temperature.

Dotted line indicates the solutionannealing temperature of 1120ºC.

Table 2Predicted and real volume fraction offerrite for conventional and rebalancedsteels, at 1120ºC.

Table 3Mass losses in three samples of theconventional steel after 24 h at 50ºC

showing values above the maximumallowed by Norsok standard of 4.0 g/m2.

SteelFerrite (%)

Predicted Real

Conventional 52 57.5

Rebalanced 42 41.3

Sample Mass Loss (g/m2)

612 (∅ 127.0 mm) 10.7 / 15.6

651 (∅ 95.25 mm) 50.9 / 64.8

606 (∅ 82.55 mm) 28.1 / 67.3

Figure 4Conventional steel corrosion surfaceof the G 48 specimen 606 after

24 h at 50ºC showing the pits.

1.0

0.9

0.8

0.7

1:T-273.15,NPM(FCC_A1#1)2:T-273.15,NPM(HCP_A3#2)3:T-273.15,NPM(M23C6)4:T-273.15,NPM(SIGMA)5:T-273.15,NPM(BCC_A2)6:T-273.15,NPM(LIQUID)

0.6

0.5

0.4

1

2

44

42 2 2

1

15

1

6

61

0.3

0.2

0.1

0800

Cr N2

TEMPERATURE_CELSIUS

N P M ( * )

1000 1200 1400 1600

Average:- 50 to 54% F balance- PREN slightly > 40- Some Cr N2

1

3

5

55

5

6

1.0

0.9

0.8

0.7

1:T-273.15,NPM(FCC_A1#1)2:T-273.15,NPM(HCP_A3#2)3:T-273.15,NPM(M23C6)4:T-273.15,NPM(SIGMA)5:T-273.15,NPM(BCC_A2)6:T-273.15,NPM(LIQUID)

0.6

0.5

0.4

1

2

4

42 2 2

1

1

5

1

6

6

1

0.3

0.2

0.1

0800

Cr N2

TEMPERATURE_CELSIUS

N P M ( * )

1000 1200 1400 1600

Aim:- New F/A balance(42%F)- Higher PREN > 41- Nearly zero Cr N2

1

3

5

5

5

56

7/17/2019 Binder 9


205



Figure 5Compositional SEM image of the

corrosion specimen surface withoutetching showing the pitting initiation is

concentrated in the ferrite. Longitudinaldirection. Magnification 500X.

that most of the ferrite grain boundarieshad pitting initiation. In order to identifythe presence of phases in the ferrite grainboundaries, the same corrosion samplewas polished and etched to be observedin the SEM. Figure 7 shows the presenceof grain boundary precipitates detectedby the compositional image (indicatedby darker points of lighter chemical ele-ments comparative to the matrix). TheEDS profiles of such precipitates indicatethe presence of higher intensities values ofCr and N, indicative of chromium nitride

precipitation, Figure 8.The Figure 9(A) shows a typical

microstructure of one of the productionconventional heats showing the intensiveferrite grain boundary precipitation ofCr

2N and the predominance of ferrite

phase with some secondary austenite.The microstructure of the pilot scale

heat with its composition adjusted toreproduce the average chemical composi-tion of the conventional production heatsis shown in Figure 9(B). The same inter-granular precipitation can be seen insidethe ferrite grains.

Figure 9(C) is the microstructureof the rebalanced composition pilot scaleheat. It is clear the absence of precipita-tion inside the ferrite grains as observedin the LOM.

The corrosion behavior of the pilotscale heats were checked using also theG-48 immersion test. Table 4 shows theresults obtained in the conventional heatH-604 with a reproduction of the con-ventional chemical composition and the

results of the rebalanced steel, pilot scaleheat H-607. The improvement in corro-sion values of the rebalanced steel is quitewell evident in relation to the conventionalsteel and is far below the maximum al-lowed by Norsok standard of 4.0 g/m2.

The production rebalanced steelshowed an impressive improvement inmass loss in the G-48 immersion test ascan be seen in Table 5 for a 152.40 mmdiameter bar tested in three different barpositions with no occurrence of pitting onthe corrosion specimen surface, Figure 10.

The microstructure obtained in theproduction rebalanced steel is presentedin Figure 11. It is evident the improve-ment when comparing the ferrite grainsfree of precipitation and higher amountof austenite.

Figure 6Compositional SEM image of the

corrosion specimen surface withoutetching showing the pitting initiation in

the ferrite grain boundaries.Longitudinal direction.Magnification 3,300 X.

Figure 7Compositional image of SEM image

showing ferrite grain boundaries

precipitates with size less than 1.0 micronin a polished sample of conventional steel.Longitudinal direction.Magnification 3,000 X.

Figure 8Ferrite grain boundary precipitation

analyzed by EDS showing the presence ofN and Cr in the precipitate. Longitudinal

direction. Magnification 3,000 X.

7/17/2019 Binder 9


206



Figure 9Microstructure of the bars. (A) 127.0 mm diameter bar ofconventional production heat (H-7263/Sample 651) that failed inpassing in the corrosion testing ASTM G-48 showing the presenceof precipitates in the ferrite grain boundaries and the presenceof some secondary austenite, (B) conventional steel pilot scale

heat H-604 showing the presence of precipitates in the ferritegrain boundaries and the presence of secondary austenite, (C)rebalanced composition steel pilot scale heat H-607 showingonly the presence of ferrite with grain boundaries without nitridesprecipitates, austenite and small presence of secondary austenite.All microstructure in the transversal direction. Electrolytic NaOHetching. Magnification 500 X.

Table 4G-48 ass losses in the conventionaland rebalanced steels pilot scaleheats after 24 h at 50ºC.

Table 5 G-48 mass losses of 152.40 mm bardetermined in three pozsitions of therebalanced steel after 24 h at 50ºCshowing values far below the maximumallowed by Norsok standard of 4.0 g/m2.

Pilot Heat Mass Loss (g/m2)

604 - Conventional 6.35

607 - Rebalanced 0.13

Sample PositionMass Loss (g/m2)

Individual Values Average

Center of Bar End 0.06

0.09 ± 0.03Mid Radius of Bar Middle 0.09

Center of Bar Middle 0.12

Figure 10G-48 corrosion specimen of the rebalan-ced steel after 24 h at 50ºC showing nopits on the testing surface.

Figure 11Microstructure of 152.40 mm diameterbar of rebalanced production heat (H-7441/Sample 430) that passed in thecorrosion testing ASTM G-48 showing nopresence of precipitates in the ferrite grainboundaries. Center of the bar middle.Longitudinal direction. Electrolytic NaOHetching. Magnification 500 X.

Table 6 shows the critical pittingtemperature-CPT of the productionconventional and rebalanced steel. It is

observed that rebalanced steel shows a

higher pitting corrosion resistance when compared to the conventional steel. A CPTincrease of more than 20 ºC was observed.

The difference of CPT temperature could

not be only explained by the slight increasein PREN values. Based on the metal-lographic evidences on pitting initiation

at the ferrite grain boundaries with Cr2N

A B

C

7/17/2019 Binder 9


207



Steel Cr 2N GBP (%)

Conventional 0.84 ± 0.14

Rebalanced 0.01

SteelCPT – Critical Pitting Temperature (ºC)

Individual Values AverageConventional 53 55 60 56

Rebalanced 73 85 - 76

Table 6Critical pitting temperatures values

determined using potentiostatic methodof the conventional and rebalanced steels.

Table 7Amount of Cr

2N precipitated at ferrite

grain boundaries in the conventional andrebalanced steels.

Figure 13

Ferrite and Austenite PREN number

for the Conventional and Rebalanced

steel calculated by Thermo-Calc.

Figure 12Effect of the amount of Cr

2N inter-

granular precipitation on the CriticalPitting Temperature-CPT determined bypotentiostatic method (average values).

precipitation in the conventional steel,we evaluated the amount of precipitatesin both steels. Table 7 shows the Cr

2N

percentages found. The rebalanced steelshowed no evidence of Cr

2N precipitation

in ferrite grain boundaries both in LOMas well as in SEM.

The relationship between Cr2N pre-

cipitation in the ferrite grain boundaries

and CPT can be seen in Figure 12. Thereduction of CPT temperature near to50ºC explains why the G-48 test devel-oped a high pitting level in the corrosionspecimens, as showed in Figure 4 and aninacceptable mass loss, Table 3.

The PREN can be calculated us-ing the Thermo-Calc simulation thatgives us the chemical compositions ofthe equilibrium phases present in the

steel at each temperature. The chemicalcomposition of austenite and ferrite werecalculated in three different temperaturesincluding the recommended solutionannealing temperature for this steelgrade of 1120ºC. Figure 13 shows thecalculation results for the temperaturesof 1050, 1120 and 1200ºC. The firstobservation is that the austenite PREN

is lower than ferrite PREN and tendsto reach the ferrite number only at hightemperatures, near 1200ºC. Second, therebalanced steel shows a PREN numberboth in austenite as in ferrite higher thanthe conventional steel.

As Thermo-Calc gives also thephase molar fraction, we have alsoestimated the PREN total of each steelcomposition, considering only the aus-

tenite and ferrite phases. The calculatedtotal PREN value is higher than 40 at1120ºC for the rebalanced steel, Figure14, showing that the compositionalchanges introduced led to a good com-bination of stronger corrosion resistantaustenite and ferrite in a proper balance,increasing the corrosion resistance of therebalanced steel.

In the Table 8 we can observe theimprovement in toughness as evaluated bythe absorbed impact energy. It is interest-ing to notice that the minimum requiredvalue was obtained even in the convention-al steel that failed in corrosion, showingthat the improper austenite/ferrite balanceand chromium nitride precipitation didnot deteriorate the toughness to a levelunder the specified values.

45

55

65

75

85

0,00 0,01 0,10 1,00 10,00

IP (%)

C P T

( ° C )

1040

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

1060

Temperature (°C)

P

R E

N

1080 1100 1120 1140 1160 1180 1200 1220

Rebalanced Ferrite

Conventional Ferrite

Conventional Austenite

Rebalanced Austenite

7/17/2019 Binder 9


208



Figure 14 Total PREN number for theConventional and Rebalancedsteels calculated by Thermo-Calc.

Table 8Longitudinal impact absorbed energy(Charpy V) of conventional and balancedsteels at -46ºC (minimum required is 45 J).

Sample Conventional (J) Rebalanced (J)

Mid Radius (∅ 152.40 mm) 101.4 215.3 ± 35.7

4. Conclusions

The present study on large diameterbars produced in super-duplex stainlesssteel UNS S 32760 has shown that the pit-ting corrosion resistance can be improvedusing alloy design tools like phase numeri-cal simulation software Thermo-Calc as abase to rebalance the alloy. It was demon-

strated that the presence of inter-granularCr

2N in ferrite acts as a pitting initiation

reducing the critical pitting temperature– CPT of the alloy even though the me-chanical properties and toughness are stillabove the acceptance criteria. Besides thealloy composition balance, the processing

parameters as finishing rolling/forgingtemperatures and solution annealingtemperature are determinants to reach thedesired mechanical and corrosion proper-ties as required by the Norsok standardMDS D57 Revision 3 in large diameterrolled bars up to 152.40 mm.

5. References

AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR TESTING AND MATERIALS. G 48-03: Standardtest methods for pitting and crevice corrosion resistance of stainless steels and

related alloys by use of ferric chloride solution. Annual Book of ASTM Standards.Philadephia: ASTM, 2009.

AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR TESTING AND MATERIALS. G 150-99: Standardtest method for electrochemical critical pitting temperature testing of stainlesssteels. Annual Book of ASTM Standards. Philadephia: ASTM, 2009.

BARBOSA, C. A. A contribuição das LRCs no revestimento de poços. Corrosão e Proteção, p.11-13, Novembro/Dezembro, 2008.

DUPLEX 2007. CD-ROM Proceeding . Italy: Associazione Italiana di Metalurgia, June, 2007.

ESTEBAN, M.P. et al. Anisotropy in the mechanical properties of two duplex stainlesssteels with different phase balance. European Stainless Steel Conference, p.547-553, 2008.

INTERNATIONAL MOLYBDENUM ASSOCIATION (IMOA). Practical guidelines for fabrication of duplex stainless steel . London: IMOA, 2009. 64p.LØVLAND, P. Super stainless steels. Stainless Steel Europe , p.28-37, november, 1993.NILSSON, J. O., KANGAS, P. Influence of phase transformations on mechanical

properties and corrosion properties in duplex stainless steels. Stainless Steel World ,p.56-59, may, 2007.

Paper submitted to INOX 2010- 10th Brazilian Stainless Steel Conference, September 20-22, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Revised accepted December, 05, 2012.

104036

37

38

39

40

41

1060

Temperature (°C)

P R E

N

1080 1100 1120 1140 1160 1180 1200 1220

Conventional

Rebalanced

7/17/2019 Binder 9


Poutrelles européennes à large ailesDimensions: HE A, B, M conformes à la norme DIN 1025HE A A suivant standard usine MontanstahlTolérances: EN 10034: 1993

Europäische Breitflanschträger Abmessu ngen: HE A, B, M gemäß DIN 10 25HE A A gemäß Montanstahl WerksstandardToleranzen: EN 10034: 1993

European wide flange beamsDimensions: HE A, B, M in accordance with DIN 1025HE AA acc ording to Montanstahl mill standardTolerances: EN 10034: 1993

× Proles are laser fused with full penetration, equivalent to hot rolled (r = laser seam).

× Prole sind Laser geschweisst mit Vollanbindung, gleichwertig zu warm gewalzt (r = Laser Naht).

× Proles sont soudé laser avec pénétration complète, équivalent au laminé à chaud (r = cordon laser).

h

b

d

r

t

h

f

i

tw

G h b tw tf r * A hi d

kg/m mm mm mm mm mm mm2 mm mm

x102

HE 100 AA 11.5 91 100 4.2 5.5 2 14.39 80.0 76.0

HE 100 A 16.0 96 100 5 8 2 20.03 80.0 76.0

HE 100 B 19.9 100 100 6 10 2 24.83 80.0 76.0

HE 100 M 41.6 120 106 12 20 2 52.03 80.0 76.0

HE 120 AA 13.9 109 120 4.2 5.5 2 17.35 98.0 94.0HE 120 A 19.3 114 120 5 8 2 24.13 98.0 94.0

HE 120 B 26.2 120 120 6.5 11 2 32.80 98.0 94.0

HE 120 M 52.2 140 126 12.5 21 2 65.20 98.0 94.0

HE 140 AA 17.5 128 140 4.3 6 2 21.82 116.0 112.0

HE 140 A 24.2 133 140 5.5 8.5 2 30.21 116.0 112.0

HE 140 B 33.4 140 140 7 12 2 41.75 116.0 112.0

HE 140 M 63.5 160 146 13 22 2 79.35 116.0 112.0

HE 160 AA 22.8 148 160 4.5 7 2 28.46 134.0 130.0

HE 160 A 29.5 152 160 6 9 2 36.87 134.0 130.0

HE 160 B 41.9 160 160 8 13 2 52.35 134.0 130.0

HE 160 M 76.1 180 166 14 23 2 95.15 134.0 130.0

HE 180 AA 27.7 167 180 5 7.5 2 34.63 152.0 148.0

HE 180 A 34.7 171 180 6 9.5 2 43.35 152.0 148.0

HE 180 B 50.7 180 180 8.5 14 2 63.35 152.0 148.0

HE 180 M 89.1 200 186 14.5 24 2 111.35 152.0 148.0

HE 200 AA 33.1 186 200 5.5 8 2 41.38 170.0 166.0

HE 200 A 40.9 190 200 6.5 10 2 51.08 170.0 166.0

HE 200 B 60.3 200 200 9 15 2 75.33 170.0 166.0

HE 200 M 102.8 220 206 15 25 2 128.53 170.0 166.0

General properties / Generelle Eigenschaften / Valeurs generaux

Designation

Bezeichnung

Désignation Dimensions Dimensions de construction

Dimensions Dimensions for detailing

Abmessungen Konstruktionsmaße

7/17/2019 Binder 9


Acier inoxydableNuance selon EN 10088-3: 1D

Etat de surface: sablé et décapé

Edelstahl RostfreiGüte nach EN 10088-3: 1DOberflächenbeschaffenheit: gestrahlt und gebeizt

Stainless steelGrade according to EN 10088-3: 1D

Surface condition: blasted and pickled

MONTANSTAHL AG

Via Gerrette 4CH - 6855 Stabio

FON: +41 (0)91 641 68 00FAX : +41 (0)91 641 68 01

[email protected]

z

y

s45°

s

Designation

Bezeichnung

Désignation

Iy Wel.y Wpl.y iy Avz Iz Wel.z Wpl.z iz Ss It Iw

mm4

mm3

mm3 mm mm

2mm

4mm

3mm

3 mm mm mm4

mm6

x104

x103

x103 x10 x10

2x10

4x10

3x10

3 x10 x104

x109

HE 100 AA 219.77 48.30 53.88 3.91 3.85 91.72 18.34 27.86 2.52 17.54 1.35 1.68

HE 100 A 332.48 69.27 78.54 4.07 4.75 133.42 26.68 40.51 2.58 23.34 3.76 2.58

HE 100 B 432.80 86.56 99.74 4.17 5.83 166.81 33.36 50.73 2.59 28.34 7.20 3.38

HE 100 M 1125.87 187.65 231.34 4.65 12.83 398.17 75.13 115.26 2.77 54.34 59.33 9.93

HE 120 AA 387.59 71.12 78.56 4.73 4.60 158.46 26.41 40.04 3.02 17.54 1.61 4.24HE 120 A 580.38 101.82 113.93 4.90 5.65 230.51 38.42 58.22 3.09 23.34 4.52 6.47

HE 120 B 838.60 139.77 159.65 5.06 7.56 317.03 52.84 80.25 3.11 30.84 11.45 9.41

HE 120 M 1991.80 284.54 345.05 5.53 15.75 701.74 111.39 170.55 3.28 56.84 81.83 24.79

HE 140 AA 682.70 106.67 117.14 5.59 5.52 274.48 39.21 59.35 3.55 18.64 2.36 10.21

HE 140 A 996.38 149.83 166.85 5.74 7.22 388.90 55.56 84.19 3.59 24.84 6.40 15.06

HE 140 B 1472.48 210.35 238.79 5.94 9.47 549.14 78.45 119.03 3.63 33.34 17.29 22.48

HE 140 M 3254.61 406.83 487.19 6.40 18.85 1143.26 156.61 239.40 3.80 59.34 109.16 54.33

HE 160 AA 1206.00 162.97 178.35 6.51 6.66 477.97 59.75 90.29 4.10 20.84 4.09 23.75

HE 160 A 1596.10 210.01 233.08 6.58 8.97 614.65 76.83 116.42 4.08 26.34 8.78 31.41

HE 160 B 2415.12 301.89 341.90 6.79 12.31 888.05 111.01 168.56 4.12 36.34 25.55 47.94

HE 160 M 5021.39 557.93 662.50 7.26 22.93 1756.56 211.63 323.49 4.30 62.34 143.70 108.05

HE 180 AA 1866.77 223.57 244.46 7.34 8.31 729.16 81.02 122.46 4.59 22.34 5.73 46.36

HE 180 A 2410.16 281.89 311.08 7.46 10.10 923.68 102.63 155.28 4.62 27.34 11.39 60.21

HE 180 B 3731.00 414.56 467.68 7.67 14.70 1361.59 151.29 229.56 4.64 38.84 35.75 93.75

HE 180 M 7383.00 738.30 869.68 8.14 26.51 2577.82 277.19 423.17 4.81 64.84 182.86 199.33

HE 200 AA 2764.06 297.21 324.83 8.17 10.14 1066.91 106.69 161.30 5.08 23.84 7.82 84.49

HE 200 A 3511.91 369.67 407.25 8.29 12.13 1333.73 133.37 201.81 5.11 28.84 14.91 108.00

HE 200 B 5515.93 551.59 620.32 8.56 17.28 2001.04 200.10 303.46 5.15 41.34 48.68 171.13

HE 200 M 10461.66 951.06 1112.92 9.02 30.28 3647.23 354.10 540.04 5.33 67.34 228.77 346.26

Structural properties / Statische Kennwerte / Valeurs statiques

Strong axis y-y Weak axis z-z

Starke Achse y-y Schwache Achse z-z

Axe fort y-y Axe faible z-z

binder 9

Documents