Development and Certification of HSLA ‐100 Steel for Naval Ship Construction

Abstract

A significant tonnage of HY‐100 steel has been used in the structural designs of new ships and submarines for weight reduction, where HT and HY‐80 steels had been previously used. A reduction in hull fabrication costs and higher productivity can be achieved by substitution of an HSLA steel for HY‐100. The significant factor in cost savings through use of HSLA steel in fabrication is the reduction or elimination of preheat for welding. Based on the success of the HSLA‐80 steel system, a program was initiated to develop and certify an HSLA‐100 steel as a replacement for HY‐100 in order to reduce fabrication costs. The alloy development and evaluation to support the certification of HSLA‐100 steel plate and weldments for surface combatant structural and ballistic protection applications are summarized. HSLA‐100 development consisted of three phases: (1) laboratory alloy development to formulate an interim specification; (2) trial steel mill plate production; and (3) plate production for the certification program. An interim specification for HSLA‐100 steel plate was used as the basis for the commercial production of over 200 tons of HSLA‐100 by domestic steel plate mills. The alloy design of HSLA‐100 represents a significantly different metallurgy and microstructure than HSLA‐80 steel, but retains the wettability of very low carbon steel. The certification program was conducted to establish the properties, welding characteristics, fabricability, and structural performance of HSLA‐100 steel plate over a range of gages from 1/4 to 3 3/4 inches. The certification program included the characterization of production HSLA‐100 steel plate mechanical, physical, and fracture properties; evaluation of wettability and welding process limits for structures of high restraint; studies of fatigue properties and effects of marine environments on HSLA‐100; and the fabrication and evaluation of large scale structural models to validate the laboratory developed welding process parameters. The properties and wettability demonstrated by HSLA‐100 steel resulted in certification of HSLA‐100 as a replacement for HY‐100 for surface ship structures and ballistic protection.

High-Strength Low-Carbon Ferritic Steel Containing Cu-Fe-Ni-Al-Mn Precipitates

“…[1][2][3][4] HSLA-100 possesses similar strength and toughness values as HY-100, but because of the reduced nominal carbon content, it is weldable without preheat, thereby reducing fabrication costs. [3][4][5] To compensate for the decrease in strength on reducing the C concentration, Cu was added to HSLA-100 for precipitation strengthening, whereas Cr, Ni, and Mo were added to increase hardenability.…”

“…[3][4][5] To compensate for the decrease in strength on reducing the C concentration, Cu was added to HSLA-100 for precipitation strengthening, whereas Cr, Ni, and Mo were added to increase hardenability. [2][3][4][5][6][7] The thermal processing of HSLA-100, a solutionizing (austenitizing) and quenching step followed by tempering at 620°C to 690°C, produced a tempered martensitic steel containing Cu precipitates. [2][3][4] Studies by Foley et al [8,9] have demonstrated that tempering of HSLA-100 overages the Cu precipitates, thereby reducing their strengthening contribution.…”

Weldability and Microstructural Aspects of Shielded Metal Arc Welded HSLA-100 Steel Plates.

“…1) Few trial heats were made in this regard in late eighties and early nineties. 1,17) Since then there have been efforts to obtain a critical understanding of the structure-property correlations of this steel. Although, in the past several studies were made in that direction, [18][19][20][21][22] very few attempts were made to understand the weldability aspects of this steel.…”

Constitutive response of welded HSLA 100 steel

“…17a and b, the base steel shows a higher strength during the tension, while the weld steel exhibits a stronger work hardening effect. The experimentally obtained curves were fitted by the regression curves based upon the MTS model (1). The match between experimental and analytical results is good at low stain; at higher strains (0.1) the two curves diverge significantly, since void opening occurs in the experiments, which is not represented by the analytical model.…”