29409-CSC09 Pro_INT_100427

4/28/10

4:26 PM

Page 165

165

P A P E R

3 D 2

A Primer for Duplex

Stainless Steels: Material
Selection and Fabrication for
Cost-effective Corrosion
Performance
JOHN GROCKI
CONSULTANT
Advantage Resources Consulting, LLC
PO Box 1117
Enfield, Connecticut 06083-1117
USA
T: 860-985-8430
F: 860-668-1930
E: arc_jmg@yahoo.com

Co-author

RICK JENKINS
GENERAL MANAGER
National Metal Distributors, Inc.
PO Box 1499
Vancouver, Washington 98668
USA
T: 360-883-0569
F: 360-883-0764
E: rick@nmd2000.com

technically efficient material for

many corrosion applications such
as air pollution control equipment
and chemical tankers. In more
recent times these metallurgical
advances have also supported the
development of an entire family of
duplex materials including lean,
super, and even hyper duplex
materials. These materials have
expanded the range of duplex
stainless steels to applications
generally reserved for the 300
series and super austenitic grades.
This paper will identify the
members of the duplex family. It will
provide a comparison of the
mechanical,
physical,
and
corrosion properties of the duplex
family with their counterpart
austenitic grades. Fabrication
guidelines for forming, cutting,
machining, and particularly welding
will be discussed. Weld qualification
issues will be included. A relative
cost comparison of duplex and
austenitic materials will be provided
including a computer generated
cost analysis of an American
Petroleum Institute (API) tank
installation. In conclusion, some

and Engineering from Cornell

University. John has worked with
industry
leaders
such
as
ArcelorMittalIndusteel, Haynes
International, VDM Technologies,
Uddeholm Steel, and Howmet
Corporation, in various technical,
sales, marketing, and management
positions. Mr. Grocki is presently a
consultant
for
Advantage
Resources Consulting where he
provides technical support services
for National Metal Distributors
operations in North America.
John is a member or the
National Association of Corrosion
Engineers, American Society for
Metals, American Society for
Testing and Materials, American
Society for Mechanical Engineers,
American
Welding
Society,
American Petroleum Institute, and
Technical Association for the Pulp
and Paper Industry.

BIOGRAPHY
Mr. Grocki has been involved in the
development, application, and
fabrication of corrosion and heat
resisting stainless steels and nickel
alloys for more than 30 years. He
holds a B.S. in Material Science
C O R R O S I O N

ABSTRACT
The progress made in stainless
steel metallurgy since the 1970s
has resulted in 2205 becoming a
recognized cost effective and

S O L U T I O N S

C O N F E R E N C E

2 0 0 9

P R O C E E D I N G S

29409-CSC09 Pro_INT_100427

4/28/10

4:26 PM

166

Page 166

3D2 A PRIMER FOR DUPLEX STAINLESS STEELS

examples of applications from

various industries will be shown.

KEYWORDS

duplex stainless steels

lean duplex
super duplex
hyper duplex
corrosion
mechanical properties
sigma phase
intermetallics
fabrication
welding
standards
cost
applications

transportation. This is the result of

continuous
improvements
in
compositions and properties. In
many applications, a cost-effective
duplex stainless steel solution, with
similar corrosion resistance and
better mechanical properties, can
be proposed as an alternative to an
austenitic materal. For example,
UNS S32304 has replaced 316L
material in evaporators for seawater
desalination units and UNS S32205
is used in the absorbers of wet flue
gas desulfurization systems instead
of 317LMN.

(HAZ) toughness and HAZ corrosion

resistance were compromised by
high ferrite and intermetallic phase
contents. These materials were
generally used in applications where
the unwelded condition was
acceptable.
In the late 1960s, the advent of
argon oxygen decarburization (AOD)
refining allowed better melt chemistry
control and the use of nitrogen as an
alloying element. This was very
important for the duplex materials,
as the nitrogen provided increased
localized corrosion resistance and
strength, stabilizing the austenite and
retarding
the
formation
of
intermetallics in the micro-structure.
The second generation (nitrogen
alloyed) materials entered the market
in the late 1970s. 2205 emerged as
the work horse of these grades.
Since then, several lean and super
duplex materials were developed,
and most recently a hyper duplex.
This expanded the family of materials
to encompass a complete range of
corrosion protection comparable to
the austenitic stainless steels.
Cost advantages of duplex
stainless steels when compared to
austenitics, which contain more
nickel and molybdenum, have
become more and more evident
during the last several years, with the
continuous alloying element price
fluctuations. Duplex grades have
become increasingly more attractive
when compared to 317LMN and 6
Mo in many applications. Due to their
lower nickel and molybdenum
contents, duplex stainless steels are
less sensitive to raw material price
fluctuations when compared to the
austenitics. This allows better cost
stability for long term project
requirements. Even now, when raw
material prices have de-escalated
and seem relatively stable, proper
duplex stainless steel grade selection
and use of corrosion, mechanical,
and physical property advantages
will result in a more cost-effective
solution for process equipment
construction.

HISTORY

INTRODUCTION
Over the last 15 years, use of
duplex stainless steels has
increased extensively in industrial
applications, particularly in chemical
process, seawater desalination, offshore industries and chemical

Duplex stainless steels were initially

developed in the 1930s, first to
improve intergranular corrosion
resistance, and later to provide
stress-corrosion
cracking
resistance. These first-generation
duplex materials provided good
corrosion resistance as a mill
product, but Heat Affected Zone

Table 1a. Lean duplex materials and their typical chemical composition.

Table 1b. Duplex materials and their typical chemical composition.

Table 1c. Super and hyper duplex and their typical chemical composition.

C O R R O S I O N

S O L U T I O N S

C O N F E R E N C E

2 0 0 9

P R O C E E D I N G S

29409-CSC09 Pro_INT_100427

4/28/10

4:26 PM

Page 167

167

3D2 A PRIMER FOR DUPLEX STAINLESS STEELS

THE FAMILY

Figure 1. Duplex microstructure austenite (light) / ferrite (dark).

The duplex family is a group of

materials which have a roughly
balanced austenite / ferrite structure,
normally expected to be in the 40/60
range but fully functional in the
30/70 range. The compositions are
characterized by high Chromium
(2127%), low Nickel (17%),
moderate to no Molybdenum
(0.55.0%), Nitrogen (0.100.40%),
and in some materials, additions of
manganese, copper or tungsten.
Proper balancing of these elements
provides optimum performance and
thermal stability for each alloy.
Chemistries for the duplex family are
shown in Tables 1a, 1b, and 1c. A
typical duplex micro-structure is
shown in Figure 1 [1].

CORROSION RESISTANCE
Duplex materials will typically offer
a comparable or improved
resistance to general corrosion
relative to the equivalent austenitic
material. They provide good
performance in both reducing and
oxidizing acids as well as caustic
environments. General corrosion
resistance can vary greatly with
changes in concentration, pH,
temperature, and impurities. It is
important to evaluate these
variables for any application to
ensure the proper grade is selected.
Localized corrosion (pitting and
crevice) resistance is often
characterized by the PRE N (Pitting
Resistance Equivalent Number). The
PRE N is calculated by using a
regression
formula
which
summarizes the cumulative effect of
those alloying elements which affect
pitting performance, commonly
expressed as:
PREN = Cr + 3.3Mo +16N.
Duplex materials have PRE Ns
ranging from 2649. It is important
to note that a PREN differential of 13
points will generally provide similar
performance while a differential of at
C O R R O S I O N

Source: IMOA

Table 2. PRE N values for duplex and austenitic grades.

least five or more will be required to

achieve significant improvement.
Comparative PREN values are shown
in Table 2.
Chloride
stress-corrosion
cracking (CSCC) resistance is one
of the most important advantages
of duplex materials. 300 series
materials are susceptible to CSCC
at
relatively
low
operating
temperatures and only more costly
25% nickel grades provide adequate
protection. Duplex materials can
provide significant improvement in

S O L U T I O N S

C O N F E R E N C E

2 0 0 9

CSCC resistance and a more cost

effective solution than austenitics.
A comparison of CSCC resistance
vs. chloride and temperature is
shown in Figure 2 [2].

MECHANICAL & PHYSICAL

PROPERTIES
Duplex materials have roughly twice
the yield and 2535% higher tensile
strength compared to austenitic
grades. This often allows the vessel
designer to achieve significant

P R O C E E D I N G S

29409-CSC09 Pro_INT_100427

4/28/10

4:26 PM

168

Page 168

3D2 A PRIMER FOR DUPLEX STAINLESS STEELS

reductions in wall thickness and

resultant savings in material and
fabrication costs. Table 3 [3] shows
ASTM
minimum
mechanical
strength values.
In addition to strength
advantages, these materials have a
higher hardness, which can be
increased further by cold working.
While they are not to be considered
wear resistant materials, they can
provide
improvements
in

for expansion joints. Table 5 [ 2 6 ]

shows a comparison of thermal
expansion values for duplex
materials and austenitic and carbon
steel alloys. Duplex materials also
provide a somewhat higher (~5%)
heat transfer capability and
subsequent
performance
improvements in heat exchange
applications.
Fatigue strength is another
advantage. Higher strength means
the material can be cyclically
stressed to higher levels without
failure.
Stress
levels
are
approximately 1.5 times those
expected for the austenitics. The
only concern is that fatigue failures
will occur more easily in duplex
materials if there is a notch present,
such as an undercut along a weld.
Figure 3[2] compares the corrosionfatigue strengths of duplex and
austenitic grades.
Fracture toughness is one area
where austenitics have the
advantage. Duplex materials begin
a ductile-brittle transformation at
about -50C (-58F), while
austenitics can be used at cryogenic
temperatures. With proper operating
precautions, duplex materials have

performance,
compared
to
austenitics in abrasive or abrasive /
corrosive environments. Table 4 [3]
shows ASTM maximum hardness
values.
Thermal
expansion
characteristics of duplex materials
are between those of austenitics and
carbon steel, but significantly closer
to carbon steel materials. This allows
for easier dissimilar metal joint
design and fabrication and less need

Figure 2. CSCC resistance vs. chloride and temperature.

Source: Industeel

Table 3. RT mechanical strength minimum from ASTM A240.

C O R R O S I O N

S O L U T I O N S

C O N F E R E N C E

Table 4. Maximum hardness values from

ASTM A240.

2 0 0 9

P R O C E E D I N G S

29409-CSC09 Pro_INT_100427

4/28/10

4:26 PM

Page 169

169

3D2 A PRIMER FOR DUPLEX STAINLESS STEELS

been used down to -100C (-148F),

but the generally accepted
minimum operating temperature is
-50C (-122F).

Table 5. Comparison of thermal expansion values (x10 -6/C).

INTERMETALLIC PHASES
The precipitation of intermetallic and
' phases at elevated temperatures
can have an effect on both the
toughness and corrosion resistance
of duplex materials. The ' occurs
at
temperatures
between
~350550C (6621022F) and
affects the toughness quickly enough
that these materials are not used at
temperatures above 315C (599F).
The intermetallics, or sigma phase,
form at temperatures between
5501000C (10221832F) and
reduce both toughness and
corrosion resistance, drastically
affecting the alloys performance.
The speed at which phases
precipitate, and the temperature
range for precipitation, are both
increased with increasing alloy
content. Hence, lean duplex grades
are thermally stable for up to eight
hours while super duplex grades
may have only 3040 minutes at the
same temperature before being
affected. Figure 4 [2] shows the
relative time-temperature range for
precipitations in duplex materials.
ASTM A923[8] was developed to
provide acceptance testing for
excessive intermetallics in 2205 and
has since been modified to include
the super duplex grades. Because
lean duplex grades are so thermally
stable,
A923 tests are not
acceptable fzor them, and alternate
tests
are
being
developed
specifically for those grades.

Source: Manufacturers Data

Figure 3. Fatigue strength of duplex and austenitic grades.

Source: Industeel

Figure 4. Temperature ranges for phase precipitations. (2304 ~8 hours for significant
sigma vs. 2205 ~1 hour ).

FABRICATION
Fabrication of duplex stainless steels
has long been a concern of
fabricators and end users. The key
to successful fabrication is
recognizing that these materials are
different, not more difficult to work
with when compared to austenitic
C O R R O S I O N

Source: Industeel

S O L U T I O N S

C O N F E R E N C E

2 0 0 9

P R O C E E D I N G S

29409-CSC09 Pro_INT_100427

4/28/10

4:26 PM

170

Page 170

3D2 A PRIMER FOR DUPLEX STAINLESS STEELS

materials
and
making
the
appropriate changes in processing
to accommodate these differences.
Duplex materials can be cut
using any of the standard cutting
methods, however, higher strength
and hardness will affect shearing and
sawing operations. For example,
shearing is limited to thinner
thickness when compared to
304L/316L: maximum thickness will
be 85% for lean duplex and 2205
and 65% for super duplex grades.
Machining of standard and
higher alloy duplex materials is
considered more difficult than
machining austenitics. Higher
hardness, work hardening, and
tenacious chips all contribute to
more rapid tool wear and create the
difficult reputation. Allowing for the
extra wear and using rigid
equipment and proper tooling will
provide results comparable to those
achieved
with
austenitics.
Conversely lean duplex materials
machine better than austenitics and
are considered similar to special
quality machining grades of 304L
and 316L [9].
Duplex materials can be cold
formed to the same shapes as
austenitic grades. However, higher
strength and greater springback will
require adjustments to the
thicknesses formed, and to bend
tooling. For example, when
compared to a thickness of
304L/316L (maximum forming
thicknesses are: 2304 = 65%, lean
duplex and 2205 = 50%, and super
duplex = 40%). Springback will
require over bending to ~115 to
achieve a 90 angle compared to
~98 for 304L/316L. Cold work will
harden duplex stainless steel,
requiring intermediate and / or final
annealing depending on the amount
of cross-section reduction.
Hot-forming of duplex materials
is also possible. The temperature
for hot-forming must be wellcontrolled, as too low a temperature
will result in cracking of the ferrite
phase and too high a temperature
C O R R O S I O N

will result in hot tearing. Typical hotforming

temperatures
are:
9551120C (17512048F) for lean
duplex
and
2205,
and
10251190C (18772174F) for
super duplex. Parts must be
annealed after forming.
Welding of duplex materials
causes the most concern and is the
area where different, not more
difficult, is most apparent. Welding
procedures must be developed to
achieve acceptable corrosion
resistance and mechanical properties
/ toughness in the weld zone.
Because of the material differences
and the fact that standard inspection
techniques cannot always reveal
metallurgically defective welds, weld
procedure and welder qualifications
are extremely important.
The weld procedure should be
designed to:

austenitic filler metals eliminating the

need for phase balance, intermetallic
precipitation, and nitrogen recovery
concerns for the weld deposit. If a
duplex filler metal is used then the
normal precautions will be required
for the weld metal deposit.
The ASTM A923 standard can
be used to help evaluate the weld
zone for intermetallics resulting from
the weld procedure for those
materials included in the standard.
Evaluations should be done
separately on both the HAZ and
weld deposit.
A computer modeling program,
Formulinox [7], has been developed
which can be used to accurately
predict the suitability of a given
duplex weld procedure for a given
plate and filler metal chemistry. This
program has been used to
prequalify procedures to help
ensure acceptable results for actual
qualification testing.
Pickling
of
welds
and
embedded surface contamination is
an important consideration to
maintain
optimum
corrosion
resistance performance for any
fabricated stainless steel material.
It becomes even more important if
the application is an aggressive
pitting or crevice environment.
Pickling with a HNO3 /HF solution
can remove heat tint and embedded
carbon steel particles, both of which
can
affect
the
corrosion
performance of the material.
Duplex materials seem to exhibit
more sensitivity to heat tint than
austenitics, so pickling of the welds
should be considered if the tint is
straw brown or darker. It should also
be noted that duplex materials are
generally more resistant to pickling
solution and, therefore, may require
more pickling time to achieve the
expected results.

Minimize oxygen content to

maintain weld deposit
toughness (most important for
flux shielded weld deposits).
Minimize hydrogen content to
avoid hydrogen embrittlement
of the ferrite phase.
Maintain nitrogen levels in the
weld deposit of gas shielded
welds to assure maximum
pitting resistance.
Control the thermal cycle to
maintain phase balance
(minimum heat input to allow
sufficient transformation of
ferrite to austenite) and
minimize intermetallic phases
(maximum heat input to avoid
precipitation).
The importance of the
welders ability to successfully
apply the procedure cannot
be overemphasized.
Lean duplex materials can be
considered welder friendly. They are
extremely thermally stable and,
therefore, difficult to precipitate
enough intermetallics to affect
performance. Also, in many cases
they can be welded with fully

S O L U T I O N S

C O N F E R E N C E

2 0 0 9

STANDARDS
The various duplex materials are
covered by ASTM standards for
most or all product forms. Coverage

P R O C E E D I N G S

29409-CSC09 Pro_INT_100427

4/28/10

4:26 PM

Page 171

171

3D2 A PRIMER FOR DUPLEX STAINLESS STEELS

Table 6. Standard coverage by product form for duplex stainless steels.

will vary depending on product form

availability for each material. ASME
coverage is in place for all but the
newest materials and API 650 also
includes all but the newer grades.
Additional
submissions
and
standard revisions are in progress
to include all of the materials in
appropriate standards. Coverage by
alloy is shown in Table 6 [10-13]. ASTM
A923 can be used for additional
base material qualification testing
for most of the standard and super
duplex materials.

Table 7. Relative cost comparison for various alloys.

COST EVALUATION
With their lower nickel and
molybdenum contents the duplex
materials are lower in cost and more
price stable than their corresponding
austenitic grades. A relative cost
comparison of various alloys is
shown in Table 7. Fabrication costs
are similar once a good welding and
fabrication procedure has been
established. This means that for
identical fabrications the duplex
materials will offer a cost advantage.
If the design can take advantage of
the higher strength of the duplex
materials then significantly greater
C O R R O S I O N

Source: Manufacturers Data

cost savings, approaching 25% or

more, can be achieved. If the wall
thickness can be reduced, then the
amount of material required for the
project, labor costs (welding thinner
plates), transportation costs, erection

S O L U T I O N S

C O N F E R E N C E

2 0 0 9

costs, and structural costs (concrete,

etc.) can be reduced.
software
was
CALRES [14]
developed to evaluate both
installation and life-cycle cost
differentials for different materials of

P R O C E E D I N G S

29409-CSC09 Pro_INT_100427

4/28/10

4:26 PM

172

Page 172

3D2 A PRIMER FOR DUPLEX STAINLESS STEELS

construction for tanks. Calculations

are based on the API tank
construction code. API 650 Appendix
X (11th Edition, 1st Addendum)
covers the duplex materials and
permits taking full advantage of their
mechanical properties.
CALRES was used to calculate
the investment cost for a 2840 m 3
(750,000 U.S. gallon) tank with a
self-supporting dome roof, storing

a liquid with a density of 1.2 g/cm 3.

The total height was estimated to be
51.3' (15.6 m) and the diameter was
50' (15.2 m). The fabricated plate
dimensions (W x L) are optimized in
accordance with standard mill
production sizes. Assuming that
stainless steels have been correctly
selected to resist the expected
corrosive conditions, maintenance
costs are not considered. Only the

manufacture
of
the
main
components (shell, bottom, and
roof), were taken into account. All
the accessories such as piping,
flanges, openings, and ladders are
not integrated into the investment
costs. The cost of transport of the
plates is also not considered. The
approach takes into account only
the initial cost of metallic materials
and the fabrication costs such as

Figure 5. Low alloy CALRES tank cost calculation.

Source: Industeel

Figure 6. High alloy CALRES tank cost calculation.

Source: Industeel
Note: UR B6 and UR B26 are Industeel trade marks for grades N08904 and N08925.

C O R R O S I O N

S O L U T I O N S

C O N F E R E N C E

2 0 0 9

P R O C E E D I N G S

29409-CSC09 Pro_INT_100427

4/28/10

4:26 PM

Page 173

173

3D2 A PRIMER FOR DUPLEX STAINLESS STEELS

forming, welding, and pickling.

The Shielded Metal Arc Welding
(SMAW) coated electrode welding
process, which corresponds to a
common welding process for field
construction, was used. Appropriate
electrode types were selected for
various plate materials. Welding
operations
included
edge
preparation,
dye-penetrant
inspection, installation, welding
(including labor time and filler metal
cost), grinding, backing pass, and
final inspection operations. Pickling
costs are based on cleaning,
pickling, rinsing, and effluent
treatment for the entire internal
surface only. Calculations are based
on published labor costs. The new
API 650 standard permits full use of
the high mechanical strength
properties of duplex stainless steels.
For example, in this case the
thickness of the bottom shell is
reduced from 0.375" (9.5 mm) to
0.210" (5.3 mm) and the second and
third courses from 0.300" (7.6 mm)
and 5.8 mm (0.230") to 0.187" (4.8
mm) by using S32202 instead of
304L or 316L. Wall thickness
reduction provides both a material
weight and fabrication cost savings.
This results in an important
reduction in investment costs. In the

share of the market has fallen to

about 65% as the use of lean duplex
plate has grown by about three
times. Growth in the use of duplex
PMP is shown in Table 8 [15]. Major
markets like the Power Industry
(FGD systems), Desalination (Multi
Effect Distillation), Pulp and Paper
(Pulping tanks, digesters, etc.),
and
Infrastructure
(bridges,
buildings, and water systems) have
seen a significant move to duplex
materials, replacing austenitics and,
in some systems, even carbon steel
and nickel alloys.

low alloy case, lean duplex materials

are cost-effective when compared
to 304, and 2205 is cost-effective
when compared to both a lined and
painted carbon steel and 316
stainless. In the higher alloy case,
2205 costs significantly less
compared to 317LMN, and even
super duplex 2507 is competitive.
In addition, 2507 is significantly
lower in cost than super austenitic
grades UNS N08904 (UR B6) and
UNS N08925 (UR B26). Results for
low alloy and high alloy CALRES
calculation are shown in Figures 5
and 6, respectively.

MIX & MATCH

MARKETS & APPLICATIONS

The last hurdle for these materials is

availability. Market growth has
generated a significant increase in
mill production levels and the
number of experienced fabrication
sources, allowing larger duplex
projects to be planned and
completed more easily. However,
there still remains a shortfall in
availability of certain product forms,
particularly pipe system components
and other hardware components. In
addition, the stock position for all
the alloys except for 2205 has not
always provided adequate support
for smaller projects or more
immediate needs. Table 9 [16,17] shows
a typical plate stock for various
duplex materials and Table10 [17]
shows typical non-plate product
form stock positions for UNS
S32550 material. The concentration
on 2205 versus other grades is
apparent. For tubular components
or thinner gage material, the stock
position for grades other than 2205
may be zero.
Where product availability and /
or mill production allow a cost
effective selection of one of the
newer alloys for the bulk of a material
requirement, the more difficult
components can certainly be an
alternate material. For example, a
lean duplex vessel can have nozzles,
etc. upgraded to 2205 to maintain
the duplex concept (corrosion

Use of duplex materials has grown

over the last 10 years. In 1998
duplex materials accounted for <1%
of the total stainless market (304
and 316 = 72%) and 2205 was 80%
of duplex market. Today, duplex
materials alone account for
significantly more of the stainless
market growth of over 10% of the
plate mill plate (PMP) market. The
high rate of growth in plate usage
may be attributable to better use of
wall thickness reductions for heavier
gage materials. While the increase
in 2205 plate use continues, its

M A R K E T E V OL UT I ON OF DUPL E X QUA R T O PL A T E S
Table 8. Growth of duplex plate(2000/2008)
usage from 20002008.
in K T
2 007 2008

2000

2 001

2002

2 003

2004

2 005

2006

C hemical tankers
T erminals

20

15

10

10

10

15

10

O ffs hore :
Tubes , blas t walls ,
tops ides flow l ines

10

12

13

N ew applications :
hydrometallurgy,, water,
s tructures , o ther

0,5

1,5

2,5

D es alination

0,5

0 ,5

1,5

15

18

21

P ulp + P aper

10

10

10

C hemicals , F ertilizers ,
P etrochemicals

12

14

P ollution control

0 ,5

0,5

10

D is tribution

10

12

15

16

Total S S produc
T OTAL
tion (K T )

6460
2

700
39

7320
5

680
38

7460
6

800
63

8850
0

90
900

1900
50

% Duplex

6%

5.5%

5%

5.5%

6%

8%

9%

10%

1 0.5%

C O R R O S I O N

S O L U T I O N S

C O N F E R E N C E

2 0 0 9

P R O C E E D I N G S

29409-CSC09 Pro_INT_100427

4/28/10

4:26 PM

174

Page 174

3D2 A PRIMER FOR DUPLEX STAINLESS STEELS

resistance / strength) with minimal

effect on total cost. If maintaining the
design strength is not an issue, then
300 series components can be
considered, as long as the corrosion
resistance is matched. In fact, a
number of tanks and pressure
vessels have been successfully
constructed using this mix and
match concept, and are providing
excellent service life.
As the use of these materials
continues to grow it can certainly be
expected that both product form
availability and stock positions will
improve to meet the demand.

SUMMARY
There are some concerns which
need to be recognized, but these
are generally dealt with by

remembering duplex materials are

different, but not more difficult.
Thermal history control, to
reduce the risk of forming secondary
phases (sigma and alpha prime), is
required; however, this is minimized
for lean duplex. Good procedures
must be developed for welding,
forming, machining, and heat
treatment. Finally, duplex materials
must be used for applications which
operate between -50C350C (58C662F).
Having
addressed
those
precautions, duplex materials are a
family of excellent engineering and
cost-effective materials. They
provide
corrosion
resistance
comparable to austenitics with
improved CSCC. Duplex materials
have twice the strength and
advantageous physical properties

when compared to austenitics.

They are also covered by industry
standards
and
end
user
specifications. Duplex materials offer
advantages for both material cost
and engineered fabrication cost
efficiencies. a

REFERENCES
1.

2.
3.

4.

Table 9. Typical North American stock position for various duplex plate materials.

5.
6.
7.

International Molybdenum
Association, Practical
Guidelines for the Fabrication
of Duplex Stainless Steels,
Revised edition, p 7, 2001.
J.P. Audouard, Industeel,
private communication, 1999.
ASTM A240, 100 Barr Harbor
Drive, PO Box C700, West
Conshohocken, PA 194282959.
D. Bergstrom, Allegheny
Ludlum, private
communication, 2009.
Outokumpu, Duplex Stainless
Steel, 2007.
Sandvik, Seamless Tube and
Pipe SAF 27078 HD, 2008.
ASTM A923, 100 Barr Harbor
Drive, PO Box C700, West
Conshohocken, PA 194282959.

Table 10. Typical North American stock

position for various UNS S32550 non
plate product forms.

Source: Ta Chen International, NMD

C O R R O S I O N

Source: NMD

S O L U T I O N S

C O N F E R E N C E

2 0 0 9

P R O C E E D I N G S

29409-CSC09 Pro_INT_100427

4/28/10

4:26 PM

Page 175

175

3D2 A PRIMER FOR DUPLEX STAINLESS STEELS

8.

International Molybdenum
Association, Practical
Guidelines for the Fabrication
of duplex Stainless Steels,
Revised Edition, pp 2527,
2001.
9. J. Peultier, ArcelorMittalIndusteel, private
communication, 2007.
10. ASTM International, 100 Barr
Harbor Drive, PO Box C700,

C O R R O S I O N

11.

12.
13.
14.

West Conshohocken, PA
19428-2959.
ASME Boiler and Pressure
Vessel Code, ASME, 3 Park
Avenue, New York, NY 100165990.
API, 1220 L Street NW,
Washington, DC 20005-4070.
AWWA, 6666 W Quincy
Avenue, Denver, CO 80235.
J. Peultier, ArcelorMittal-

S O L U T I O N S

C O N F E R E N C E

2 0 0 9

Industeel, private
communication, 2008.
15. J. Peultier, IndusteelArcelorMittal, private
communication, 2009.
16. J. Hellinghausen, Ta Chen
International, Inc., private
communication, 2009.
17. R. Jenkins, National Metal
Distributors, Inc., private
communication, 2009.

P R O C E E D I N G S