{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02920284135753749, 'fraction_numerical': 0.022888713496448304, 'mean_word_length': 5.009478672985782, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Evaluation of repair welding procedures for 2.25Cr–1Mo and 9Cr–1Mo steel welds

Abstract Chromium–molybdenum steels are extensively used in the steam generator circuits of power plants. These components may require welding of the cracks that can develop during fabrication, storage, and transportation stages, or during the service life of the plant. This investigation compares repair welding methods for Cr–Mo steels, using 2.25Cr–1Mo and 9Cr–1Mo materials. To simulate aging during service, welds were heat treated at 873 K for 5000 h. Simulated repair welding of the aged welds was carried out at the weld/base metal interface, i.e. at the location at which cracks are usually reported to occur during service. Two repair welding methods (half bead and butter bead temper bead methods) conforming to the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code were used. Tensile properties, hardness profiles, and X-ray diffraction based residual stress distributions were determined for both the Cr–Mo steel welds to evaluate the simulated repair welds. Analysis of the test results showed that both the repair welding methods can be used for 2.25Cr–1Mo steel welds, although the butter bead temper bead method is much more suitable for both the 2.25Cr–1Mo and 9Cr–1Mo steel welds.