Abstract:
A highly corrosion resistant, durable, strong, hardenable and relatively inexpensive nickel based alloy containing chromium and a high iron content has improved castability and weldability. The alloy contains approximately the quantities indicated: nickel 33 to 53 (to balance to 100 percent), chromium 20 to 25 percent, molybdenum 6 to 9 percent, cobalt 4 to 8 percent, iron 15 to 20 percent, manganese 2 to 4 percent, copper less then about 0.15 percent, carbon up to 0.2 percent and silicon 0.5 to 1.0 percent. The alloy is air meltable and produces a highly fluid castable melt. All percentages are by weight.

Description:
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION 
     Applicant is aware of the following U.S. Patents. 
     
         ______________________________________  2,185,987         2,938,786  3,758,294         3,758,296  3,813,239         3,817,747  3,844,774         3,892,541  3,893,851         4,033,767______________________________________ 
    
     The disclosures of the above listed patents are incorporated by reference herein. 
     Equipment used in highly corrosive environments typically is constructed of metal alloys such as stainless steel or other high alloys. These alloys are necessary to withstand the extremely corrosive effects of environments in which the equipment encounters chemicals such as concentrated sulfuric acid or concentrated phosphoric acid. A particularly difficult environment is encountered in making phosphate fertilizer. In the digestion of phosphate rock with hot, concentrated sulfuric acid, equipment must resist the environment at temperatures up to about 100° C. The impure phosphoric acid which is produced can be extremely corrosive and contains some residual sulfuric acid. The corrosive effect is often increased by other impurities in the phosphoric acid, particularly by halogen ions such as chloride and fluoride, which are normally present in the phosphate rock feedstock used in the process. An extremely corrosive environment is encountered in the concentration of the crude phosphoric acid. 
     Applicants have produced a new alloy which has particular corrosion resistance in the environment encountered in producing phosphate fertilizer. In addition to superior corrosion resistance, the new alloy is relatively inexpensive and is highly castable to form complex parts and shapes. The alloy may be prepared by conventional and inexpensive air melt techniques, which is a particular advantage. Applicants&#39; alloy typically contains between about 20-25% chromium, 6-9% molybdenum, 0.5-1% silicon, 2-4% manganese, 15-20% iron, 4-8% cobalt, up to 0.2% nitrogen, up to 0.2% carbon and less than about 0.15% copper; a low copper content is preferred. The balance (about 33-53%) is nickel. 
     Applicants&#39; alloy is an air melted, substantially copper free, nickel base corrosion resistant alloy. Applicant has discovered, contrary to conventional wisdom, that an essentially copper free alloy exhibits corrosion resistance equal to and in most instances significantly better than similar alloys containing copper, particularly in the severe environment encountered in the concentration of phosphoric acid for fertilizers. This is particular true where quantities of halogen ions, as chloride and fluoride, are present. 
     Applicants have discovered that their particular substantially copper free alloys are significantly superior to commerical alloys normally used in this service, such as Hasteloy C276. Applicants&#39; alloys have the significant advantage that they may be formed by standard air melting techniques and do not required the special techniques required by conventional high alloys used in this service, such as vacuum or electroslag processing. High alloys requiring such low carbon and silicon residuals must be melted using specialized melting techniques and are generally available only in wrought form. They cannot be produced by casting in commercial foundries using air melting techniques. 
     The very low carbon and silicon contents which are specified for the commercial high alloys are produced by these expensive melting techniques. It is known that a relatively high silicon content promotes fluidity of the molten metal and renders the melt castable. At the extremely low silicon content specified for the high alloys, the molten metal lacks fluidity and cannot be cast by conventional sand, investment or centrifugal foundry methods. 
     It is generally known that copper content in corrosion resistant alloys, such as the austentic stainless steels and certain other high nickel alloys, enhances the corrosion resistance of these alloys in environments where the alloys are exposed to acids of sulfur and phosphorus. Typical corrosion resistant alloys make use of a significant copper content to achieve better corrosion resistance. It is known that if the copper content is too high, it can cause a condition known as hot shortness in the alloys which makes them difficult to cast or hot work. Copper also may reduce the weldability of these alloys, but conventionally, significant copper content is desirable. Applicant&#39;s have found, however, that they can product a highly corrosion resistant alloy which is essentially copper free. In doing so, applicants also have produced an alloy which is weldable, which can result in high process yields and in a reduction of scrap and waste metal. These factors all contribute to a much lower product cost in applicants&#39; alloy. 
     Phosphate rock deposits at various locations in the world vary greatly in chemical composition. The most severe corrosion environments are typically encountered in processing deposits of phosphate rock which contain a high content of halogens, such as chloride or fluoride. It is an object of applicants&#39; invention to produce a material of construction suitable for use in processing such phosphate rock which presents a severely corrosive environment. 
     It is also an object of applicants&#39; invention to produce a corrosion resistant alloy which is low in copper and which has an enchanced corrosion resistance. 
     It is a further object of applicants&#39; invention to produce a highly corrosion resistant alloy which contains silicon in sufficient quantity to render the alloy castable by conventional methods. 
     It is an object of applicants&#39; invention to produce a highly corrosion resistant alloy which contains silicon. 
     It is an object of applicants&#39; invention to produce a corrosion resistant alloy that is essentially copper free. 
     It is an object of applicants&#39; invention to produce a corrosion resistant alloy which has high strength and hardness properties. 
     Applicants&#39; substantially copper free alloy may be made in two forms, depending upon the level of carbon in each form. The ultra low carbon alloys of applicants&#39; invention have a carbon content of less than about 0.08% and have an austenitic solid solution structure when solution treated. The low carbon alloys, with a carbon content of between about 0.10 and 0.20%, exhibit a precipitation of a Chinese script configuration. It will be understood that, as used herein, the terms &#34;low carbon&#34; and &#34;ultra low carbon&#34; are meant to describe alloys having the above carbon contents. The precipitates have been identified as heavy metal carbides. The micro hardness test, converted to Rockwell C scale, shows a matrix hardness in the low carbon alloy matrix of about 26.7 and about 52.3 hardness in the carbide. The low carbon alloys do not have the exceptionally high corrosion resistance exhibited by the ultra low carbon alloy. However, the low carbon alloys have a structure which may be highly useful in corrosive services where physical abrasion, erosion or galling is encountered. 
     The invention may be further understood by reference to the following Description of the Preferred Embodiments. 
    
    
     DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS 
     The alloys of the invention are nickel base alloys with high iron and moderate to high chromium content. The alloys contain between about 33 to 53 percent nickel, preferrably about 42 percent (to balance to 100 percent), about 20 to 25 percent chromium, about 6 to 9 percent molybdnum, about 4 to 8 percent cobalt, about 15 to 20 percent iron, about 2 to 4 percent manganese and about 0.5 to 1.0 percent silicon. The alloy is substantially copper free, having less than about 0.15 percent copper and preferably having substantially less than 0.15%. The alloy may contain up to about 0.2 percent carbon, preferrably up to about 0.08% carbon and having an austenitic composition or containing about 0.10 and 0.20 percent carbon and having an extremely hard Chinese script precipitated structure in an austenitic matrix. The alloy may also contain minor amounts of tramp or extraneous elements, as is typical in alloy compositions, for example, sulfur and phosphorous. It is prefered that these elements be kept to as low a level as conveniently possible. Preferrably sulfur is maintained below about 0.025 percent by weight and phosphorous below about 0.025 percent by weight. Nitrogen, up to about 0.20% by weight, may be used as an alloy ingredient to promote formation of an austenitic structure and to increase strength. 
     Nickel is present in the alloy as the base metal and at a relatively high percent. Nickel adds greatly to the corrosion resistance of the alloy. The chromium level is at a moderate/high level of between about 20 and 25 percent by weight. It is preferred that the chromium present be added, within these limits, at a high level to add corrosion resistance and strength to the alloy. The addition of cobalt and manganese to the alloy also adds additional strength and contributes to the corrosion resistance. 
     Applicants have found that the elimination of copper from the alloy, to the greatest extent possible, greatly improves the castability of the alloy and unexpectedly provides an alloy having as high or higher corrosion resistance than conventional alloys containing copper. In addition, the weldability of the alloy is greatly improved by the omission of copper from the alloy. It is preferred that the copper content be kept as low as possible and preferably substantially below 0.15 percent by weight. 
     The silicon content in this alloy should be as low as possible to provide increased corrosion resistance in the severe halogen containing phosphoric acid environments. However, reducing silicon in alloys is known to reduce the fluidity of the melt and inhibit the castability of the alloys, particular using conventional air melt, gravity casting techniques. Applicants have found however, that they can reduce the silicon content substantially below 1.0 percent by weight, in this alloy, and still provide an alloy which is highly fluid in the molten state. Applicants&#39; alloys produce superior cast articles, even when casting complex shapes. In addition, applicants have found that, at this low silicon content, the corrosion resistance of their alloy against halide containing phosphoric acid is greatly improved. Preferably the silicon content is between about 0.5 and 1.0 percent by weight. 
     It is desirable that, within the limits set, iron also be included at as high a level as conveniently possible. Having a high iron content reduces the cost of the alloy, since iron is a much less expensive constituent then nickel, chromium and the other high alloy metals. Moreover, having the high iron content permits the inclusion of alloy constituents in their alloyed form with iron, rather than requiring the use of pure alloying metals. This reduces the cost of preparation of the alloy. Moreover, applicants have found that within the limits of their alloy, the presence of iron does not detract from the overall corrosion resistance, weldability, and castability of their alloy product. While applicants&#39; alloy is described as a castable alloy, it will be understood that it may be readily machined by conventional processes, such as turning, milling or drilling, as required to produce a finished product. 
     Applicants&#39; alloy may take two finished forms. In the first form, applicants&#39; alloy has a carbon composition of up to about 0.08 percent, preferably between about 0.02-0.08%. This form, designated the ultra low carbon form, exhibits an austenitic structure and has very high corrosion resistance in the target environment, particularly where the environment contains halide ion, such as chloride and fluoride. The second type of applicants&#39; alloy is designated the low carbon form. This form typically has the carbon content between about 0.1 and 0.2 percent by weight. The low carbon form has a two phase structure having an austenitic matrix containing Chinese script carbon precipitates. The precipitates have exceptional hardness. While the low carbon alloys do not have the very high corrosion resistance in the target environment exhibited by the ultra low carbon alloys, they may be used for service exhibiting corrosion, abrasion, erosion and galling. The low carbon alloys can find exceptional utility in an environment having both high corrosion and abrasive factors, such as pumping of slurries of acidified phosphate rock, as might be encountered in phosphoric acid production. 
     The preferred composition of applicants&#39; ultra low carbon alloy is nickel about 41.7%, chromium about 22.5%, molybdenum about 8.0%, cobalt about 6-8%, iron about 16%, manganese about 2.5-3.0%, carbon up to about 0.08%, silicon about 0.6-0.75% and copper below about 0.15%. 
     The following tables show examples of alloys made within the concepts of the invention compared with conventional alloys. LEWMET 25 (™) is a commercial version of alloys disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 3,758,296. All of the examples, as summarized in Tables I through IV, are alloys made by conventional air melt techniques with the exception of the commercial alloys Hasteloy (™) C276 and Carpenter (™) 20Cb3. Hasteloy (™) C276 is an example of a super low carbon and silicon wrought alloy requiring a specialized melting process. Carpenter 20Cb3 is a commercial wrought material. Also compared in the Tables are two versions of conventional type 316 stainless steel (CF8M and CFBMX). Table I shows a comparison of the compositions of these alloys. The experimental material shown in the tables was made in a conventional electric furnace by melting the ingredients together in the proper proportions, deoxidizing and casting test bars using conventional gravity casting techniques. The cast bars were heat treated and subjected to the tests shown in Tables I through IV. A solution heat treatment, such as a solution heat treating in excess of 2000° F.(1050° C.) and water quench, is satisfactory. 
     
                       TABLE I A______________________________________Summary - Experimental HeatsAnalysis - Weight Percent     Ultra Low          Low Carbon     Carbon Heats       HeatsElement  J526   N318   N340 N853 P3483 N339  N1148______________________________________Carbon   0.02   0.04   0.05 0.02 0.02  0.10  0.18Chromium 22.62  22.74  24.69                       22.40                            22.45 20.02 20.15Nickel (bydifference)    43.56  43.45  43.12                       43.69                            43.56 43.06 42.43Molybdenum    7.75   8.25   6.31 8.05 8.78  9.06  8.69Silicon  0.58   0.59   0.93 0.67 0.88  0.75  0.52Manganese    2.41   2.42   1.93 2.85 2.86  3.12  3.75Copper   0.08   0.11   0.08 0.10 0.06  0.09  0.09Iron     16.62  16.55  18.81                       16.17                            15.25 15.67 15.98Cobalt   6.34   5.83   3.98 5.95 5.92  8.06  8.20Nitrogen --     0.06   0.07 0.08 0.22  0.05  --Sulfur   .010   .012   .008 .012 .009  .007  .006Phosphorus    .012   .013   .024 .012 .005  .017  .006______________________________________ 
    
     
                       TABLE I B______________________________________Analysis of Other Alloy Tested - Weight Percent    Hastelloy             Alloy                Lewmet 25Element  C276     20Cb3   CF8M  CF8MX  (J525)______________________________________Carbon   .002     0.03    0.06  0.02   0.03Chromium 15.63    19.31   18.72 17.39  22.45Nickel   54.28    33.09   9.26  11.94  41.76*Molybdenum    15.47    2.18    2.29  1.96   7.36Silicon  .002     0.40    1.57  0.50   0.81Manganese    0.42     0.25    0.70  1.30   2.63Copper   0.10     3.23    0.55  0.33   2.93Iron     5.91     Bal     Bal   Bal    17.67Cobalt   2.13     --      --    --     6.14Tungsten 3.63     --      --    0.43   --Sulfur   .002     .001    NA    .012   .007Vanadium 0.13     --      --    --     --Aluminum 0.23     --      --    --     --Cb &amp; Ta  --       0.66    --    --     --Phosphorus    .006     .023    NA    .030   .010______________________________________ *By Analysis 
    
     Table II summarizes the comparison of corrosion testing of these alloys in the environment noted in Table II. The alloys were prepared as conventional test blanks and subjected to a series of corrosion tests. A series was tested in phosphoric acid at 90° C. The test were run for 96 hours. Where noted, the test samples were subjected to temperatures of 115° C. for twelve hours. This extremely severe test occurred as a result of the malfunction of the test equipment. The composition of phosphoric acid was ajusted to have the chloride ion content as noted. The phosphoric acid was a crude phosphoric acid typical of acids used in producing phosphate fertilizer using Florida phosphate rock. Two standard grades, 32% P 2  O 5  and 54% P 2  O 5 , were tested. A third grade tested, 42% P 2  O 5 , was manufactured by a different commercial process also using Florida rock. These acids contained approximately 2.2 percent fluoride ion, in the 54 percent P 2  O 5  acid, and 1.25 percent fluoride ion the 32 percent P 2  O 5  . These acid compositions are typical of those which would be encountered in severe phosphoric acid environments with high halide ion content. 
     As can be seen from Table II, applicants&#39; new ultra low carbon alloys in particular tested as being superior to conventional wrought and cast materials. The resistance of applicants&#39; new alloys to 32% P 2  O 5  solutions containing halide ion tested as being highly superior to the best conventional material tested, LEWMET 25. The 32% P 2  O 5  solutions are typical of environments encountered in phosphoric acid concentration. 
     
                       TABLE II A______________________________________Static Corrosion Laboratory Tests in H.sub.3 PO.sub.4Rates - mils per year (0.001 inch per year)(Test run for 96 hours in non-aerated acidat 90° C., except where noted)Acid     Ultra Low Carbon     Low CarbonEnvironment    J526    N318   N340 N853 P3483 N339 N1148______________________________________32% P.sub.2 O.sub.5    0.5     1.0    0.4  0.6  1.4   6.2  9.732% P.sub.2 O.sub.5500 ppm Cl--    1.3     0.7    0.7  1.0  0.7   6.3  12.632% P.sub.2 O.sub.51000     0.9     0.9    0.7  0.7  1.0   5.3  8.2ppm Cl--32% P.sub.2 O.sub.55000     0.8     0.6    0.7  1.3  1.0   18.4 52.7ppm Cl--32% P.sub.2 O.sub.510,000   1.0     1.1    5.5  1.1ppm Cl--32% P.sub.2 O.sub.515,000   0.7            0.6ppm Cl--54% P.sub.2 O.sub.5    1.1     1.5    0.9  1.4  1.9   2.9  4.554% P.sub.2 O.sub.5500      2.7     1.9    1.5  1.7  1.3   3.7  2.4ppm Cl--54% P.sub.2 O.sub.51000     1.7     1.5    1.3  2.0  1.9   4.2* 11.3*ppm Cl--54% P.sub.2 O.sub.55000     3.6*    3.8*   4.2* 2.9* 4.1*  27.3 154.0ppm Cl--42% P.sub.2 O.sub.520,000   0.9ppm Cl--42% P.sub.2 O.sub.530,000   1.1ppm Cl--______________________________________ *Temperature to 115 degrees C. for 12 hours 
    
     
                       TABLE II B______________________________________Static Corrosion Laboratory Tests in H.sub.3 PO.sub.4Rates - mils per year (0.001 inch per year)(Test run for 96 hours in non-aerated acid at 90° C.,except where noted)Acid                                   Lewmet 25Environment     C-276   CF8MX    CF8M  20Cb3 (J525)______________________________________32% P.sub.2 O.sub.5     5.0     7.8      3.3   1.3   0.432% P.sub.2 O.sub.5500ppm Cl--  4.6     10.0     3.9   2.8   1.432% P.sub.2 O.sub.51000ppm Cl--  4.2     19.7     6.9   4.2   1.632% P.sub.2 O.sub.55000ppm Cl--  5.1     534      252   459   1.132% P.sub.2 O.sub.510,000ppm Cl--  8.7                          8.132% P.sub.2 O.sub.515,000ppm Cl--  6.054% P.sub.2 O.sub.5     1.5     7.9      7.1   4.1   1.854% P.sub.2 O.sub.5500ppm Cl--  1.6     103      5.6   53.6  2.454% P.sub.2 O.sub.51000ppm Cl--  2.0              148   94    2.054% P.sub.2 O.sub.55000ppm Cl--  2.8                          3.642% P.sub.2 O.sub.520,000ppm Cl--  6.8                          1.142% P.sub.2 O.sub.530,000ppm Cl--  5.0                          1.1______________________________________ 
    
     In Table III a number of applicants&#39; alloys were subjected to comparative tests in aerated 98 percent sulfuric acid. The tests were conducted at 100° C., 110° C. and 120° C. As can be seen, the alloy exhibits a high degree of corrosion resistance in concentrated sulfuric acid, particularly at temperatures of 100° C. and below, as would normally be encountered in handling sulfuric acid in a phosphoric acid plant. 
     
                       TABLE III______________________________________Average corrosion rates - Ultra Low C - Low Cu experimentalheats in 98% Sulfuric acid - Rates inches per year100° C.       110° C. 120° C.Heat No.   Tests  ipy       Tests                         ipy     Tests                                      ipy______________________________________J526    6      .010      2    .041    1    .044N318    1      .021      1    .019    1    .060N340    1      .017      1    .014    1    .043N853    1      .010      2    .048    2    .029P3483   2      .022      2    .015    3    .051   11     .014*     8    .030*   8    .045*______________________________________ *Weighted Average Rates 
    
     Table IV shows the hardness and strength data for applicants&#39; alloys. It can be seen that applicants&#39; alloys have a high degree of mechanical strength and hardness, which makes them particularly suited for structural and mechanical components in contact with corrosive environments. 
     
                       TABLE IV A______________________________________Mechanical Test Data (solution heat treatedat 2150° F. - 2235° F. for one hour per inch ofmetal section and water quenched)    Yield   Tensile Elong.                          R.A.HEAT NO.psipsi      %       %       Brinell                          Type______________________________________J526     37,090  69,670  56.0  58.4  163   CastN318     42,190  83,370  61.5  60.8  170   CastN340     45.290  90,600  64.0  59.5  166   CastP3483    49.320  92,100  66.5  66.8  207   CastN853     40,760  80,020  59.5  56.4  153   CastP339     45,360  77,940  21.0  22.5  197   CastN1148    48,180  75,140  11.0  10.4  207   Cast______________________________________ 
    
     
                       TABLE IV B______________________________________Mechanical Properties of Other Alloys Tested______________________________________    Yield   Tensile Elong.                          R.A.Alloypsipsi      %       %       Brinell                          Type______________________________________Hastelloy(TM) C276    53,000  113,000 65    76   170   WroughtCarpenter(TM) 20Cb3    58,000  98,500  38    67   197   WroughtCF8MX    30,800  65,700  50.5  67   137   CastCF8M*    42,000  80,000  50.0  NA   170   CastLewmet 25(TM)     37,850  71,430  63.5  62.9 163   Cast______________________________________ *Typical Value 
    
     A leg of standard cast keel bar as described in ASTM Standard A370 was sectioned from a bar cast from experimental heat No. N318. A section was removed from the cut surface of the bar and weld filler metal applied. The bar was then solution heat treated and submitted to an independent commercial laboratory for evaluation. No fracture was observed in bending the bar 180 degrees on a 11/2 inch radius. This test indicated excellent weldability. 
     Evaluation of the castability of the experimental alloys was made by making experimental castings of the general type used in this service. These included pump propellers and pump casings. The molten metal exhibited adequate fluidity filling all voids in the molds. No hot shortness or cracking was evident even when castings were water quenched from high temperature in the heat treating process. 
     Various changes and modifications may be made within the purview of this invention, as will be readily apparent to those skilled in the art. Such changes and modifications are within the scope and teachings of this invention as defined by the claims appended hereto. The invention is not to be limited by the examples given herein for purposes of illustration, but only by the scope of the appended claims and their equivalents.