Skip to content

Chat history

You said:

globe reciprocating type control valve, what is the other type?

ChatGPT said:

In control valve classification, a globe reciprocating type is the most

common (linear motion, plug moves up and down).
The other main type is the rotary type control valve.

Here’s the broad distinction:

1. Reciprocating (Linear Motion)

 Example: Globe valve, diaphragm valve, gate valve (when used

for control)

 Motion: Stem moves up/down (linear) to vary flow.

 Characteristics: High accuracy, good throttling, but relatively larger

size/weight for same Cv.

2. Rotary Motion

 Example:

 Ball valve (segment or V-port ball)

 Butterfly valve (high-performance / triple offset)

 Eccentric plug valve

 Motion: Disk/plug rotates typically 90° to vary flow.

 Characteristics: Compact, higher capacity (higher Cv), lighter weight,

faster actuation.

👉 So, if one type is globe reciprocating, the other type is rotary control
valves.

Would you like me to prepare a quick comparison table (Globe vs

Rotary) so you can see selection criteria (pressure drop, Cv, cost, etc.)?

You said:

linear flow to open/flow to lose/flow under what is the difference?

ChatGPT said:

Got it 👍 — you’re asking about control valve flow directions like flow-to-
open, flow-to-close, flow-over-the-plug, flow-under-the-plug.
These terms define how the process fluid pushes on the plug relative
to the actuator force in a linear (reciprocating) globe control valve.

🔹 1. Flow to Open (FTO)

 Fluid force assists the actuator spring to open the valve.

 As fluid enters above the plug (flow-over-plug), pressure pushes the

plug downward → helping the spring to open.

 Use when:

 Fail-safe open position is required.

 Pressure drop is high (fluid helps open).

 Cavitation/erosion control (because jet impinges on the seat, not

plug).

 Typical trim: Top-guided globe valve.

🔹 2. Flow to Close (FTC)

 Fluid force assists the actuator to close the valve.

 As fluid enters below the plug (flow-under-plug), pressure pushes the

plug upward → helping actuator to close.

 Use when:

 Fail-safe closed position is required.

 Tight shutoff is critical.

 Actuator thrust is limited.

 Typical trim: Cage-guided or balanced plug valve.

🔹 3. Flow Over vs. Flow Under

  Flow Over the Plug (FTO) = fluid comes from above, pushes down
→ stable, avoids plug vibration, but requires bigger actuator to lift
against pressure.

 Flow Under the Plug (FTC) = fluid comes from below, pushes up →
actuator load reduced, easier opening, but plug may chatter at low
opening if not guided well.

✅ Key difference:
It’s about which way fluid pressure acts on the plug and whether it
helps or resists actuator motion.
This determines valve stability, required actuator size, and fail-safe
direction.

Would you like me to make a simple sketch-style diagram (flow path

arrows vs plug) so the difference is immediately clear?

You said:

AISI 410 or Stellite 6 material shall be used for the trim material in control
valve where as vendor propose 316SS or 1.4571 material. is this acceptable
if not why?

ChatGPT said:

Thought for 7s

Short answer: Not acceptable in most control-valve trim applications

specified as AISI 410 or Stellite 6, unless the service is very mild and the
vendor can prove equivalence. Here’s why, and what to ask the vendor if you
want to consider it.

Why 316 / 1.4571 is usually NOT acceptable vs AISI-410 or Stellite-6

1. Wear / erosion resistance

 Stellite-6 is a cobalt-base hardfacing alloy specifically used for

trim to resist abrasion, erosion, cavitation and high-energy
impingement.
  AISI-410 (when properly heat treated) provides much higher
hardness and wear resistance than austenitic 316.

 316 / 1.4571 (316Ti) is a soft austenitic stainless — good

corrosion resistance but poor wear / erosion / galling
resistance. In erosive or particulate services it will wear quickly
and lose seat tightness.

2. Galling and seizure risk

 Austenitic stainless steels are prone to galling in sliding contact

unless hardening/hardfacing is used. For control-valves, sliding
contact between plug/seat requires a hard trim or hardfacing to
avoid chatter, leakage and rapid wear.

3. High-temperature performance

 You previously mentioned design temperature ~470 °C. At

elevated temperatures 316’s mechanical properties and strength
degrade and it is more prone to creep/softening than Stellite or
properly tempered martensitic steels. Stellite maintains hardness
and wear resistance at higher temperatures.

4. Shutoff and leakage

 Soft trims are less likely to maintain tight shutoff after wear. If
the spec calls for AISI-410 or Stellite to achieve required leakage
class, 316 will likely fail to meet that leakage performance over
life.

5. Specification intent / equivalency

 If the purchaser explicitly specified 410 or Stellite, the intent is

clearly wear/cavitation/high-temp resistant trim. 316
is not an equivalent; substituting it without technical justification
violates the spec.

When 316 / 1.4571 MIGHT be acceptable

Only if all of the following are true:

 Service is clean, non-abrasive, non-erosive (no particles, low

velocity, no cavitation).
  Temperature is low enough that 316’s mechanical and wear properties
are acceptable. (470 °C is borderline/unfavourable.)

 Tight shutoff and long life under sliding wear are not required.

 Vendor provides test data showing equivalent performance (hardness,

wear/erosion test, seat leakage test, and proven field history for
identical conditions).

If any of the above is not true, do not accept 316.

Practical next steps / vendor response to request

You can send the vendor a concise technical rejection or request for
justification. Example wording:

The specified trim material is AISI-410 or Stellite-6. Vendor proposed AISI-

316 / 1.4571, which is not an equivalent for wear/cavitation/high-
temperature resistant trim. Please provide:

1. Detailed service data (fluid composition, particulates, velocity, ΔP,

cavitation/flash conditions, operating & design temperatures).

2. Material certificates and hardness (as-delivered) for proposed trim.

3. Independent wear/erosion/cavitation test data or proven field history

demonstrating equivalence to the specified material for this exact
service.

4. If 316 is used as a base, propose hardfacing/hardening (e.g., Stellite

overlay, tungsten carbide) with welding procedure and inspection plan.
Until equivalence is proven, the substitution is not accepted.

Alternatives & recommendations

 If vendor cannot justify 316, require Stellite-6 hardfacing on

plug/seat, or hardened AISI-410 trim as originally specified.

 For combined corrosion + wear services, consider Stellite on

corrosion-resistant base (e.g., 316 body with Stellite on trim) — this
gives corrosion resistance plus hardwearing surface.
  Specify required hardness, leakage class, and acceptance
tests (seat leakage test, seat hardness, metallurgical report) in the
purchase order to avoid ambiguity.

If you want, I can:

 Draft a ready-to-send vendor technical rejection/clarification email

(short).

 Produce a quick comparison table (316 vs 410 vs Stellite-6) showing

properties and failure modes for control-valve trim. Which would you
prefer?

You said:

can we accept the SS316 with stellite-6 overlay?

ChatGPT said:

Thought for 6s

Short answer: Yes — SS316 (or 1.4571/316Ti) base with a correctly

applied Stellite-6 overlay on the trim (plug/seat and other
sliding/impingement surfaces) is a commonly accepted and
technically sound solution, provided a set of conditions and controls are
met. If those controls aren’t met, the substitution should be rejected.

Below are the reasons, required controls/specifications, and recommended

tests you should require from the vendor before accepting.

Why this combo can be acceptable

 Best of both worlds: 316 gives corrosion resistance for the valve
body/trim backing; Stellite-6 overlay (cobalt-chromium hardfacing)
provides the hard, erosion/cavitation/wear-resistant surface at
the plug/seat that was the intent of the original Stellite spec.

 Correctly applied Stellite greatly extends life vs plain 316 while keeping
overall corrosion resistance acceptable for many services.

Mandatory conditions / vendor deliverables (must have before

acceptance)

1. Coverage — Stellite overlay must be applied to

all wear/erosion/cavitation contact surfaces: plug nose, seat ring
 face, contact band, and any areas exposed to impinging jets or
particulate erosion.

 For critical shutoff areas, consider full-faced seat inserts of

solid Stellite or an insert welded into the body rather than thin
skim only.

2. Overlay method & control

 Preferred methods: PTA (plasma transferred arc), weld-

overlay with Stellite filler (TIG/laser with controlled heat
input).

 Control dilution (keep base metal dilution low — typically <10–

15%) to preserve Stellite chemistry and hardness. Vendor must
state method and measured dilution.

3. Overlay thickness & layers

 Typical deposit thickness for trim surfaces: minimum ~1.0 mm

– typical 1.5–3.0 mm, depending on severity of service.
Heavier cavitation/erosion may require 2–3 mm or a solid Stellite
insert. Vendor must state thickness and number of passes.

4. Welding procedure & qualification

 Qualified WPS/PQR for the overlay process. Welding procedure

must be provided along with PQR and welder qualifications.

5. Material certificates

 Mill/test certificates for 316 / 316Ti base and certificate

for Stellite filler composition (Co-Cr alloy grade). Traceability
to batch/heat number.

6. Hardness & metallurgical checks

 Hardness measurements of the overlay (map of hardness across

plug/seat). Expected as-deposited hardness for Stellite-6
normally in the HRC ≈ 40–48 range (vendor to confirm).

 Macro/micro examination to show fusion, absence of cracks,

porosity within acceptable limits. Report on dilution and interface
soundness.

7. NDT
  NDT of overlay as per spec: visual, liquid penetrant or
magnetic particle (for exposed surface defects), and where
required die penetrant on seating faces. Provide acceptance
criteria.

8. Seat & leakage testing

 Seat leakage test to the specified leakage class (API 598 / FCI
70-2 or project spec). Tests must be performed after overlay and
final machining if re-machining was done.

 Functional hydraulic/air test demonstrating sealing under

required ΔP.

9. Bond/adhesion proof

 Where critical, require a bond/peel test coupon or documented

field history proving bond strength and wear life in similar
service.

10. Surface finish & final machining

 If overlay is final machined, show method and final surface finish

(Ra) and any post-machining steps to avoid heat damage. Avoid
overheating/stress that reduces bond.

11. Temperature & metallurgy caution

 Confirm base material suitability for operating

temperature. You previously noted design temperature ≈ 470
°C — that is high: austenitic 316 in that range may
be susceptible to sensitization and strength/creep issues.

 If high-temperature exposure is expected, 316Ti

(1.4571) is preferable to avoid sensitization; vendor must
justify base metal choice for the design temp.

 Also check for any required PWHT rules (usually Stellite

overlays do not require PWHT, but the overall valve
construction and bolting may have other requirements).

12. Electrochemical / galvanic note

 Stellite is a cobalt-based alloy — galvanic concerns with 316 are

typically low in process environments where both are wetted, but
 still check the process chemistry. If the process is very corrosive
or chlorinated, ensure the combination is acceptable.

When to not accept the combo

 Vendor refuses to overlay the critical seating surfaces (only overlays

non-critical areas).

 Vendor cannot supply WPS/PQR, material certificates, dilution data,

hardness readings, or seat leakage test results.

 Service includes extremely high temperature or highly corrosive

chloride environments where base 316 would rapidly degrade (in
which case consider different base material + Stellite, or solid
Stellite/other alloys).

 Service has very high particulate abrasion or severe cavitation

where a solid Stellite seat/segment or tungsten-carbide would be more
appropriate.

Recommended PO / specification wording (short)

“Trim shall be stainless steel grade 316 (or 316Ti if required by process
temperature) with Stellite-6 overlay applied to all plug/seat and other
wear-exposed trim surfaces. Overlay shall be applied by qualified procedure
(PTA or controlled weld overlay) with dilution ≤15% and minimum deposited
thickness X mm. Vendor shall supply WPS/PQR, material certificates, overlay
hardness map, dilution measurement, macro/micro exam report, NDT results,
and final seat leakage test results to [spec reference/API598/FCI]. No
deviation accepted without written technical justification and test evidence.”

(You can set X = 1.5 mm or 2 mm depending on severity.)

Tests to require (summary)

 Material certs (base + filler)

 WPS/PQR and welder qual

 Hardness map of overlay

 Macro/micro exam + dilution measurement

 NDT (VT/PT/MT as applicable)

 Seat leakage test to project spec / API598

 Bond/peel coupon or documented field history

If you want, I can:

 Draft a short vendor-clarification/rejection email with the exact PO

wording and required test deliverables (one paragraph + checklist).

 Propose specific overlay thickness and acceptance criteria based on

the service details (ΔP, velocity, particulates, temperature) if you give
me those numbers.

Which would you like next?

You said:

17-4 PH or 1.4418 hardened material is acceptable inplace of AISI 410 or

Stellite 6

ChatGPT said:

Thought for 10s

Short answer up front: Maybe — but most likely no if your design

temperature is ~470 °C.

 17-4 PH (age-hardening martensitic stainless) can reach hardness and

wear resistance approaching hardened martensitic steels and is often a
reasonable substitute for AISI-410 for trim provided it is properly
heat-treated (age condition) and the service temperature is within its
allowed range. However 17-4 PH loses its designed
temper/strength if exposed to high temperatures in the ~450–
550 °C region and therefore is NOT a safe substitute for Stellite-
6 in high-temperature or severe cavitation/erosion services. Penn
Stainless+1

 EN 1.4418 (X4CrNiMo16-5-1) is a martensitic stainless grade with

high strength and hardness after heat treatment and better
corrosion resistance than plain 410, but it also has temperature
limitations and can suffer temper embrittlement if
exposed/tempered around ~450–550 °C. That makes it a poor
choice where the valve trim will see prolonged exposure near 470
°C. metalcor.de+1

 Stellite-6 (cobalt-chromium hardfacing) is chosen specifically because

it maintains hardness and wear/cavitation resistance at
elevated temperatures where stainless martensitic materials soften
 or embrittle. If the original spec included Stellite-6 because of
cavitation/erosion or high temperature, you should not replace it
with 17-4PH or 1.4418 without strong justification. upmet.com+1

Decision rules you can apply (practical)

1. If operating/design temperature ≥ ~400 °C (especially ~470

°C):

 Do not accept 17-4PH or 1.4418 as a substitute for Stellite-6.

They will either lose hardness or risk temper/thermal
embrittlement in the 450–550 °C range. Require Stellite overlay
or solid Stellite/tungsten carbide as originally specified. Penn
Stainless+1

2. If operating temperature ≤ ~300–320 °C and service is mainly

sliding wear (limited cavitation/impingement and no heavy
particulates):

 17-4PH (aged to appropriate H-condition) or properly

hardened 1.4418 may be acceptable as a wear-resistant trim in
lieu of AISI-410, provided vendor supplies heat-treatment
records, hardness, and wear data. Typical HRC achievable for 17-
4PH (H900 etc.) is around HRC ~35–45 depending on ageing —
similar or higher than 410 when correctly treated. Penn
Stainless+1

3. If cavitation, high ΔP, erosive particulates, or need for long

tight shutoff life:

 Prefer Stellite-6 overlay or solid Stellite seat/plug (or

WC/CMC inserts) regardless of base material. 17-4PH/1.4418 are
weaker options for such severe wear mechanisms.

If you consider accepting 17-4PH / 1.4418 — required vendor

controls (must have)

 Complete service data: process, ΔP, velocities, particulates,

cavitation risk, design & operating temps (including excursions).

 Heat treatment certificates showing solution and aging treatment

for 17-4PH (age condition), or hardening/tempering records for 1.4418.
  Hardness map of finished trim (plug/seat) — target HRC range
declared.

 Seat leakage test to project leakage class (API-598 / FCI as

applicable) after finish machining.

 Wear/cavitation/erosion test data or proven field history in

identical service.

 NDT, metallography or microstructure verification as appropriate.

 If any prolonged exposure will be near 450–550 °C, do not

accept without metallurgy justification — this temp range is linked to
loss of temper/embrittlement risk. carpentertechnology.com+1

Suggested PO / rejection wording (short)

“Trim substitution to 17-4PH / EN-1.4418 is not accepted for service with

design or expected temperatures ≥ 400 °C or where cavitation/erosion risk
exists. Substitution may be considered only if vendor provides full service
data and documentation: heat-treatment certificates, hardness map,
WPS/PQR (if welded), metallography/dilution (if overlaid), seat leakage test to
[spec], and proven field data showing equivalence to specified AISI-410 /
Stellite-6. Until equivalence is demonstrated, require Stellite-6 overlay or
solid Stellite seats as per PO.”

Bottom line (tailored to your earlier info)

You previously mentioned design temperature ≈ 470 °C. That single

fact is decisive: both 17-4 PH and 1.4418 risk losing their intended
properties or becoming embrittled in that temperature range, so they are
not acceptable substitutes for Stellite-6 in your application. If the
application only called for AISI-410 (no Stellite) and if other conditions (ΔP,
particulate, cavitation) are mild, 17-4PH could be considered instead of 410
— but not at 470 °C without detailed metallurgical justification. Penn
Stainless+2carpentertechnology.com+2

If you want, I can:

  Draft the exact vendor-clarification/rejection email (one short
paragraph + checklist) using your PO number and leakage class, or

 Produce a 1-page comparison table (AISI-410 vs 17-4PH vs 1.4418 vs

Stellite-6) showing hardness, temp limits, corrosion and wear
behaviour.

Which would you like next?

You said:

the design temperature is only limited to 65 deg C

ChatGPT said:

Thought for 5s

Good — with the design temperature now 65 °C, that materially changes the
decision. Short answer up front:

Yes — 17-4PH or a hardened martensitic grade such as 1.4418 can

be accepted as a trim material in place of AISI-410 in most cases at
65 °C, provided the service is not severely erosive/cavitating and
the vendor delivers the required heat-treatment, hardness and test
evidence.
However, if the original reason for specifying Stellite-6 was severe
cavitation/erosion or extremely long tight-shutoff life, you should
still require Stellite (overlay or solid seat) or equivalent hardfacing.

Below is a compact decision checklist and the vendor controls you should
require before accepting the substitution.

Decision checklist

1. Temperature — OK: 65 °C is well within the safe range for 17-4PH and
martensitic grades; no temper-loss or embrittlement issues.

2. Wear / cavitation / erosion risk

 If service has high ΔP, cavitation, impinging jets, or

suspended particulates, do not substitute Stellite with plain
hardened martensitic steel — Stellite (or WC/other hardfacing)
remains preferred.

 If flow is clean, low-to-moderate velocity, and no

cavitation/particulates, hardened 17-4PH / 1.4418 is
acceptable.
 3. Corrosion environment

 Martensitic stainless (17-4PH / 1.4418) has lower corrosion

resistance than 316. If the process is chloride-rich or highly
corrosive, check corrosion requirements — you may prefer a
corrosion-resistant base or apply corrosion protection elsewhere.

4. Shutoff / leakage requirement

 If tight long-term shutoff is critical under sliding wear, Stellite

overlay gives longer life. Hardened martensitic can still meet
leakage class initially, but watch life-cycle wear.

Vendor deliverables / mandatory acceptance criteria

Require the vendor to provide the following before acceptance:

 Service data confirmation: process media, ΔP across valve, flow

velocity, solids/particulates (ppm/%), cavitation/ flashing risk,
operating & start/stop cycles.

 Heat-treatment certificate for 17-4PH (solution + ageing condition

specified, e.g., H900/H1025) or HT records for 1.4418 showing the
temper/hardening schedule.

 Hardness map / measurements on finished trim (plug/seat). Specify

target hardness (example: HRC 35–45 depending on ageing — choose
the value appropriate for expected wear).

 Material certificates (traceable to heat/heat-lot) for base metal and

any filler/welding consumables.

 Seat leakage test to project leakage class (API-598 or project spec)

after final machining.

 Metallography / microstructure check or scan showing desired

microstructure and absence of critical defects (cracks, excessive
retained austenite if that matters).

 NDT where applicable (VT / PT / MT) of machined seating faces and

any welds.

 Wear/cavitation test data or field history if vendor is claiming

equivalence to Stellite in wear performance.

 WPS/PQR & welder qual if any weld/hardfacing/repairs are carried

out.
  PO note stating that any substitution is subject to rejection if
tests/records are incomplete.

Suggested PO wording (short paragraph)

“Trim may be 17-4PH (or EN 1.4418) only if vendor supplies heat-treatment

certificates, hardness map showing HRC = ___, material certificates, and seat
leakage test to [API-598/project spec] after final machining. Substitution will
not be accepted where there is risk of cavitation, erosion or high particulate
abrasion; in such services Stellite-6 overlay or solid Stellite seats are
required.”

(You can fill in the HRC target and the leakage spec to match project
requirements.)

Practical notes & recommendations

 Choose the ageing condition for 17-4PH to meet the required

hardness and toughness (e.g., H900 gives higher hardness but lower
toughness than H1025 — vendor should state condition).

 If corrosion resistance is a concern but you still want hard trim,

consider a corrosion-resistant body (316/316Ti) with 17-4PH
hardened trim or 316 base with Stellite overlay on seating
surfaces.

 If you accept martensitic trim, plan a maintenance inspection

interval earlier than for Stellite trim if the service has any
erosion/particulates — watch for increasing seat leakage.

 If supplier proposes surface hardfacing instead of full solid trim, require

full documentation of dilution, overlay thickness and hardness.

If you want, I can:

 Draft the exact one-paragraph vendor acceptance clause with HRC

target and test checklist filled in (tell me the leakage class or I can set
a common example like API-598 Class IV), or

 Produce a short comparison table (AISI-410 vs 17-4PH vs 1.4418 vs

Stellite-6) with recommended acceptance criteria.

Which would you like me to prepare now?

You said:
SS316 or 1.4571 or 17-4 PH or 1.4418 hardened material is acceptable
inplace of AISI 410 or Stellite 6 with 65 deg C? what are the other parameters
shall be considered before select

ChatGPT said:

Thought for a couple of seconds

Short answer up front: Yes — at a design temperature of 65 °C, SS316 /

1.4571 or hardened martensitic alloys (17-4PH, EN-1.4418) can be
acceptable substitutes for AISI-410 or Stellite-6 — but only if the full
service conditions and verification tests are reviewed and satisfied.
If the service involves cavitation, high ΔP, impinging jets, suspended
solids or severe erosive wear, then Stellite-6 (overlay or solid) or
tungsten-carbide type hardfacing is still preferred.

Below is a concise checklist of all the other parameters you must

consider before approving substitution, plus recommended acceptance
criteria and a short PO clause you can drop into purchase documents.

1) Service-condition parameters (must check)

 Process fluid chemistry — corrosivity (chlorides, H₂S, acids, pH),

erosive species, solids concentration (ppm), particle size.

 ΔP across the valve — steady and transient. High ΔP increases

cavitation/erosion risk.

 Flow velocity and jetting — local velocities at seat/plug and any

impingement locations.

 Cavitation / flashing potential — inlet pressure vs vapor pressure

and expected two-phase conditions.

 Operating cycles — frequent starts/stops, stroking duty, throttling

severity (affects wear).

 Temperature range (operating & excursions) — you stated 65 °C

design (good), but check any steam/flush/temp excursions.

 Required leakage / tightness class — API/FCI class or specific

project leakage requirement.

 Required corrosion resistance — is local corrosion or crevice

corrosion a concern? (316 has better corrosion resistance than
martensitic 17-4/1.4418).
  System compatibility / galvanic issues — any dissimilar-metal
corrosion concerns when mating trim to body or pipeline.

 Safety / regulatory constraints — toxic/flammable media where

failure has higher consequence.

2) Material & metallurgical parameters to verify

 Hardness target & ageing

 17-4PH: specify aging condition (H900 / H1025 etc.). Typical

ranges: H900 ≈ HRC 40–45 (higher hardness, less
toughness); H1025 ≈ HRC 30–38 (more toughness). Pick
based on wear vs toughness tradeoff.

 EN 1.4418 / 1.4418 hardened: supply the heat-treatment and

resulting HRC.

 316 / 1.4571: normally soft austenitic (not wear resistant) —

acceptable only with Stellite or other hardfacing on seating
surfaces.

 Toughness — impact/toughness requirement if valve subject to shock

or low-temperature service.

 Corrosion resistance — pitting resistance (PRE), sensitization risk

(316 vs 316Ti), compatibility with media.

 Wear resistance — hardness, microstructure, and validated

wear/erosion test data or field history.

 Thermal stability — even at 65 °C this is OK, but check for any

excursions or sterilization/heat-cleaning cycles.

 Weldability and post-weld treatment — especially where trims are

welded or overlays applied.

3) Design & manufacturing controls to require from vendor

 Heat-treatment certificates for each part (solution + age for 17-

4PH; temper schedule for 1.4418).

 Material test certificates (MTC) traceable to heat/lot (EN 10204 3.1

or as specified).

 Hardness map / spot readings across plug and seat (before and
after final machining). State required HRC range.
  If 316 proposed — require Stellite-6 overlay (or solid Stellite
inserts) on plug/seat and overlay documentation (WPS/PQR, dilution %,
overlay thickness, hardness).

 WPS/PQR & welder qualifications for any overlays/welds.

 NDT: VT + PT/MT on critical seating faces / welds as applicable.

 Metallography report (macro/micro) showing fusion and acceptable

dilution (if overlay).

 Seat leakage test per project spec or API-598 after final assembly &
machining.

 Functional/cycle test (if high cycling duty) to demonstrate no

galling / stickiness.

 Bond/peel test data if using overlays (to show overlay adhesion).

 Field history or independent erosion/wear test if vendor claims

equivalence to Stellite.

4) Performance / engineering checks

 Actuator sizing — hardened trim vs softer trim may change friction

and required thrust; re-run actuator sizing if material or seat finish
changes.

 Seat geometry / finish — final Ra/seat angle and contact band width
influence leakage and wear. Specify final finish.

 Balance vs unbalanced trim — unbalanced plugs can have large

stem forces at ΔP; check thrust & guidance.

 Galling prevention — for stainless sliding pairs, consider

coatings/hardening, split seats, or anti-galling surface finish.

 Maintenance interval planning — set inspection frequency based

on expected wear life for the chosen trim.

5) Recommended acceptance criteria (example values you can use)

 Hardness (final, on plug/seat contact band):

 17-4PH (aged) HRC ~36–44 depending on chosen age condition

(specify exact HRC in PO).

 1.4418 hardened HRC ~35–42 (vendor to prove).

  If using 316 base, require Stellite-6 overlay with overlay
hardness HRC ≈ 40–48 and minimum overlay thickness 1.5–2.0
mm on seating surfaces (adjust to service severity).

 Dilution (overlay): ≤ 10–15% (vendor to measure).

 Seat leakage: API-598 or project leakage class (state acceptance

leakage in PO).

 WPS/PQR and MTC: required (3.1 cert).

 NDT: VT + PT/MT on seating faces and welds.

6) When to insist on Stellite / hardfacing (do not substitute)

 Any of: ΔP high with cavitation risk, erosive particulates > small
ppm, impinging jets on seating area, requirement for long life
with minimal maintenance, or proven past field failures with
softer trims.

7) Short sample PO clause (drop-in)

“Trim materials may be substituted with 17-4PH or EN-1.4418 hardened

stainless only if vendor furnishes complete heat-treatment certificates,
material test certificates, hardness map (HRC ___ to ___), and seat leakage
test to [API-598 / Project Spec]. SS316 / 1.4571 is acceptable only with
Stellite-6 overlay or solid Stellite seat on all wear/impingement surfaces;
overlay shall be applied by qualified WPS/PQR, dilution ≤15%, and overlay
hardness HRC ≈ 40–48 (min thickness X mm). Any substitution for Stellite-6
is subject to rejection unless vendor provides independent
wear/erosion/cavitation test data or proven field history demonstrating
equivalence.”

(Replace blanks with your leakage class and target HRC/overlay thickness
based on expected severity.)

Final practical recommendation

1. Gather the full service data (ΔP, velocity, solids ppm, fluid chemistry,
cycles).

2. If the service is clean, low ΔP, no cavitation and corrosion is

moderate, accept 17-4PH or 1.4418 with the vendor deliverables
above.
 3. If there is any doubt about erosion/cavitation or if long life/tight shutoff
is required, require Stellite-6 overlay or solid Stellite seats (316
base with Stellite on trim is a common compromise).

If you like, I can:

 Draft a one-line PO acceptance clause tuned to your leakage class and

a target HRC, or

 Produce a 1-page comparison table showing corrosion, hardness, temp

limits, and recommended use for SS316, 1.4571, 17-4PH, 1.4418 and
Stellite-6.

Which would help you most right now?

You said:

can we use the stem without hard facing ?

ChatGPT said:

Thought for a few seconds

Short answer: Yes — you can often use a plain (un-hardfaced) stem,
but only if the stem material, heat treatment, surface finish and mating
parts are specified to prevent wear, galling and corrosion. Hardfacing the
stem is not usually required — most stems are made from hardened
stainless (or nitrided/ plated) rather than be covered with Stellite — but you
must control several parameters. Below is a practical checklist and
recommended specs so the stem will perform without hardfacing.

When a non-hardfaced stem is acceptable

 The stem does not act as a primary wear surface against an

abrasive/cavitating jet or particulate stream (i.e., the plug/seat are the
main wear locations).

 The valve is not subject to severe cavitation/impinging jets that would

erode the stem area.

 The stem material and heat treatment provide sufficient hardness

and toughness for the expected mechanical loads and wear from
packing, guides, and threads.
  Appropriate anti-galling measures are used where stainless sliding
pairs exist (stem/bonnet guide, stem/packing contact).

Typical stem choices (no hardfacing) and why they work

 Hardened martensitic stainless (e.g., 17-4PH aged, or hardened

1.4418) — gives good hardness for wear resistance while retaining
corrosion resistance and is commonly used for stems.

 AISI 410 (hardened/tempered) — traditional stem material for wear

resistance.

 316 / 1.4571 stems — used when corrosion resistance is the key,

but may need anti-galling measures because they are softer.

 Surface treatments (rather than overlay) are common: nitriding,

hard chrome plating, or laser-peening + finish to improve wear
and reduce galling.

Important parameters you must control if you do NOT hardface the

stem

1. Material & heat treatment

 Specify exact grade and heat-treatment/ageing condition (e.g.,

17-4PH H900/H1025). Provide MTC.

2. Hardness target

 State acceptable HRC range for stem working surfaces (e.g., HRC
30–42 depending on material and service).

3. Surface finish

 Stem surface Ra for sliding surfaces (e.g., Ra ≤ 0.4 µm on the

polished stem).

4. Anti-galling measures

 For stainless-on-stainless sliding pairs, require: polished finish +

dry film lubricant, MoS₂ or PTFE packing lubricant, or use of
dissimilar bushings (bronze/graphite) or coatings (nitriding/hard
chrome).
 5. Stem-to-bushing material pairing

 Choose bushing/guide material to avoid galling: bronze/bronze-

coated, graphite-impregnated, or hard/low-friction inserts are
common.

6. Thread protection & design

 Protect exposed threads (bellows, thread covers) and specify

thread material/hardness or lubricants to prevent thread galling.
Use sacrificial anti-galling coatings on threads if needed.

7. Plating / surface treatment (if used)

 Specify coating type, thickness, adhesion test: e.g., hard chrome

plating 5–25 µm with bend/adhesion test, or ion-nitriding with
case depth and hardness map.

8. Corrosion considerations

 Select stem material based on process chemistry to avoid

corrosion which can accelerate galling and fretting. 316/316Ti for
chloride environments; 17-4PH if less aggressive.

9. Packing and stem seal design

 Proper packing material and gland design reduce friction and

wear on stem. Specify packing type and running torque
expectations.

10. Actuator/torque checks

 Update actuator sizing if coatings or harder surfaces change friction;

specify maximum running torque allowed.

11. Testing & acceptance

 Require hardness readings, surface finish measurements, functional

stroke/cycle tests, and seat leakage test after assembly.

When to insist on stem hardfacing

 Rare, but consider hardfacing if:

 The stem is exposed to direct impingement/erosion or solid

particles (unusual).
  Very high sliding wear between stem and a mating hard surface
cannot be controlled by coatings or bushings.

 The stem is used as a sacrificial/wear replaceable part in some

specialty valves.

Note: Stellite overlay on a stem is uncommon — Stellite is normally

reserved for plug/seat/trim. For stems, surface hardening (nitriding, induction
hardening) or plating is preferred.

Suggested PO wording (one line you can drop in)

“Stems shall be manufactured from [material & age condition, e.g., 17-4PH
H1025] with final surface hardness HRC – and surface finish Ra ≤ __ µm on
sliding surfaces. Where stainless-on-stainless sliding contact exists, vendor
shall provide anti-galling measures (nitriding or hard chrome plating, or
dissimilar guide bushings) and demonstrate acceptable running torque and
cycle life. Provide MTC, hardness map, Ra readings and functional cycle test
results.”

Quick practical checklist for vendor acceptance

 ☐ MTC to EN 10204 3.1 for stem material & heat treatment

 ☐ Hardness readings (map / spots) on stem (and any treated layers)

 ☐ Surface finish Ra on sliding zones

 ☐ Coating spec & adhesion test (if plating/nitriding used)

 ☐ Details of guide/bushing materials and anti-galling measures

 ☐ Functional stroke / cycling test (no galling/sticking)

 ☐ Final seat leakage test (API-598 / project spec)

If you tell me the exact valve type (rising stem globe, rotary, material
of bonnet guides, packing type, and the media) I’ll propose a concrete
stem material + surface treatment and provide the one-line PO text filled
with numbers (HRC, Ra, coating thickness) you can put into your purchase
order.
You said:

is the stem material selection should consider the cavitation / flashing other
than wear resistance?

ChatGPT said:

Great question — yes, cavitation and flashing must be considered in

stem material selection, but indirectly.

Here’s the reasoning:

1. Where cavitation / flashing damage occurs

 Cavitation bubbles collapse and flashing jets cause intense

erosion — but mainly in the throttling zone (plug/seat/flow
passage).

 The stem itself is usually outside the high-velocity core of the

cavitation zone, so it doesn’t take the brunt of the erosive attack like
the plug and seat do.

2. Why the stem can still be affected

 Vibration & dynamic loads: Cavitation causes severe vibration,

which is transmitted through the plug to the stem → higher risk
of stem wear at guides and packing, and possible fatigue issues.

 Turbulent backflow / spray: In flashing service, liquid–vapor

mixtures can impinge upward and wet the stem. If the medium is
erosive/corrosive, this can degrade the stem surface (especially if
unprotected stainless).

 Stem/trim interface: If the plug is hardfaced to resist cavitation but

the stem is soft, the load transfer area (stem–plug joint, threads, or
weld) can be overstressed and wear prematurely.

3. Stem material considerations under cavitation/flashing

So while wear resistance is the primary driver, in cavitating/flashing

service you should also check:
  Strength and fatigue resistance — stem must handle dynamic
forces from vibration and fluctuating hydraulic loads.

 Hardness vs. galling resistance — hardened martensitic (410, 17-

4PH, 1.4418) or nitrided surfaces are preferable over soft 316/1.4571.

 Corrosion resistance — flashing often exposes stem to a two-phase,

sometimes aerated stream → ensure stem surface can resist corrosion
+ erosion synergy.

 Surface finish and coatings — polished + nitrided/chrome-plated

stem reduces wear under vibration-induced friction at packing.

 Plug–stem connection integrity — robust design (welded, pinned,

or threaded with proper engagement) to withstand cavitation-induced
vibration.

4. Practical guidance

 If severe cavitation/flashing expected →

 Plug & seat must have Stellite / tungsten carbide / CoCr

hardfacing.

 Stem should be hardened martensitic stainless (410, 17-

4PH, or 1.4418) with anti-galling surface
treatment (nitriding or chrome plating).

 Avoid bare 316 stems → too soft, risk of fretting under vibration.

 If mild cavitation/flashing or just clean service at 65 °C →

 17-4PH or 1.4418 stem without overlay is typically fine, as long

as hardness + anti-galling measures are in place.

✅ So to answer directly:
Stem selection is mainly about wear resistance and galling control, but
in cavitation/flashing service you must also factor in vibration, fatigue
strength, corrosion–erosion synergy, and plug–stem joint integrity.
That’s why many specs tie stem hardness and surface finish to service
severity, even if the stem is not directly in the cavitation zone.
Do you want me to draft a trim material matrix (stem + plug + seat) for
different severities of service (clean / erosive / cavitating), so you’ll have a
ready reference for vendor evaluation?

You said:

17pH or 1.4418 material with stellite is wise?

ChatGPT said:

Thought for a few seconds

Short answer: Yes — using a 17-4PH or EN-1.4418 (hardened

martensitic) base with Stellite-6 overlay on the wear/cavitating
surfaces is a sensible, commonly used solution when you need a
balance of corrosion/strength (base) and long-term erosion/cavitation/wear
resistance (Stellite).

Below I’ll summarize why it’s good, what to watch for, must-have vendor
controls / acceptance tests, and a short PO clause you can drop into
purchase documents.

Why it’s a good choice

 Best-of-both-worlds: the martensitic base (17-4PH or 1.4418) gives

strength and reasonable corrosion resistance; Stellite-6 provides a
hard, wear- and cavitation-resistant surface on plug/seat/contact
bands.

 Longer life & tighter shutoff: Stellite resists cavitation/erosion and

maintains hardness where plain martensitic or austenitic steels would
wear or soften.

 Common practice: many OEMs use corrosion-resistant or high-

strength bases with Co-Cr hardfacing on the actual
sliding/impingement surfaces.

Important cautions / things to watch

1. Heat-treatment sequencing: welding/overlay can alter the age-

hardened condition of 17-4PH. The vendor must control the sequence
(solution/age vs overlay) and show the final mechanical properties.
 Often the accepted practice is to control heat input, then perform a
final age treatment if required — vendor must justify and document.

2. Dilution control: excessive dilution of Stellite by the base metal will

reduce its effective hardness and corrosion resistance. Keep dilution
low (typical target ≤10–15%).

3. Overlay thickness & coverage: seating and impingement areas

must be fully covered with sufficient thickness (typical minimum 1.0–
1.5 mm; 1.5–3 mm common for severe service). Thin skim deposits
may not be durable in heavy cavitation.

4. Residual stresses & cracking: overlay welding can introduce

residual stresses and, in some cases, crack. WPS/PQR and controls are
essential.

5. Galvanic & corrosion check: Stellite (Co-Cr) on a martensitic base is

normally acceptable, but check the specific process chemistry
(chlorides, acids) for any galvanic or corrosion synergy issues.

6. Temperature: at your stated design temp (65 °C) there’s no temper-

loss risk for 17-4PH/1.4418 — good. For higher temps the answer
would differ.

7. Machining/finish: final machining of overlay surfaces and correct

seat finishing are critical to achieve leakage class and avoid premature
wear.

Must-have vendor controls / deliverables (require before

acceptance)

 WPS/PQR and welder qualifications for the Stellite overlay process.

State preferred processes (PTA, controlled TIG overlay, or laser/PTA) if
you have a preference.

 Overlay method & dilution report (measured dilution %). Target

dilution ≤10–15%.

 Overlay thickness & coverage statement (min thickness X mm on

plug/seat — define X based on severity; 1.5–2.0 mm is common).

 Hardness map / readings of the overlay (expected Stellite-6 as-

deposited HRC ≈ 40–48) and of the underlying base in the heat-
affected zone.
  Heat treatment records for base material and statement of post-
overlay heat treatment (or justification why none). If post-weld ageing
is performed, provide procedure and PQR.

 Material Test Certificates (MTC) 3.1 for base and filler materials
(traceable to heat/lot).

 Macro/micro section & metallography showing fusion, overlay

structure, and absence of unacceptable porosity/cracking.

 NDT (VT + PT/MT as applicable) of seating faces and critical welds.

 Seat leakage test (API-598 or project leakage class) after final

machining and assembly.

 Functional cycling test (if high-cycle duty) showing no galling/stick

at packing/guides.

 Bond/peel or field history (preferred) showing overlay adhesion and

service life in similar conditions.

Practical recommendations (service-dependent)

 For clean low-particulate service with mild throttling, a thinner

overlay (≈1.0–1.5 mm) may be acceptable.

 For high ΔP / cavitation / particulate service, require thicker

overlay (2–3 mm) or consider solid Stellite seat inserts or WC
inserts for extreme erosion.

 If corrosion resistance of the body is needed, use 316/316Ti body +

17-4PH or 1.4418 internal parts with Stellite on contact areas —
optimize for both corrosion and strength.

 Specify final seat finish (Ra) and contact band width/geometry — these
affect leakage and wear.

Quick PO clause (pick & edit)

“Trim shall be manufactured from 17-4PH (or EN-1.4418) base with Stellite-
6 overlay applied to all plug/seat and impingement surfaces. Overlay shall
be applied by qualified procedure (PTA or controlled weld overlay), dilution
≤15%, minimum overlay thickness 1.5 mm (adjust to service), and
measured overlay hardness HRC 40–48. Vendor shall provide WPS/PQR, MTC
(3.1), dilution report, overlay hardness map, macro/micro exam, NDT results,
and seat leakage test to [API-598 / Project Spec] after final machining. No
deviation accepted without technical justification and test evidence.”

Bottom line

 Yes — wise and commonly used where you need strength/corrosion

from the base and wear/cavitation resistance from Stellite.

 Make sure the vendor proves the overlay quality, dilution, hardness,
welding procedure and final mechanical properties — otherwise the
benefit of Stellite can be lost.

Would you like me to:

A) Draft a vendor query/rejection email using your PO number and service
ΔP/medium, or
B) Produce a 1-page acceptance checklist (fillable fields: overlay thickness,
HRC target, dilution %, tests) that you can attach to the PO?

You said:

630 SS for steam inplace of ASTM A182 grade F 6A?

ChatGPT said:

Short answer: No, 630 SS (17-4PH) is generally not directly

equivalent to ASTM A182 F6a for high-temperature steam service,
unless you carefully evaluate the temperature, pressure, and
corrosion/oxidation requirements. Here’s why and what to consider:

1. Material comparison

Property ASTM A182 F6a 630 SS / 17-4PH

Martensitic Precipitation-hardening martensitic

Type stainless steel stainless

Typical Cr ~13%, Ni ~4%,

Composition Cu <0.5% Cr 15–17%, Ni 3–5%, Cu 3–5%
Property ASTM A182 F6a 630 SS / 17-4PH

Normalized &
Hardening tempered Solution + age-hardening

H900: Yield ~1100 MPa, Tensile ~1240

Yield ~415 MPa, MPa; H1025: Yield ~1000 MPa, Tensile
Strength Tensile ~620 MPa ~1150 MPa

Good for Good general corrosion resistance;

Corrosion steam/water, susceptible to stress corrosion cracking in
resistance moderate some conditions

Good below ~315°C; above that Cu

Oxidation Steam at 400– precipitation may reduce corrosion
resistance 450°C acceptable resistance

Observation:

 F6a is designed for high-temperature steam applications (like

valves, fittings, piping), with proven creep and oxidation resistance.

 17-4PH / 630 SS has higher strength but its long-term oxidation

resistance in high-temperature steam (>300–350°C) is less
proven. Cu precipitation during aging can promote localized corrosion.

2. Service conditions you must check

 Temperature: What is the steam temperature? 630 SS is generally

limited to ~315–320°C for long-term oxidation/corrosion resistance. If
your steam is hotter, F6a is preferred.

 Pressure / stress: High-pressure service requires verified creep and

stress rupture data; F6a is rated for standard steam valve/pipe designs.

 Cyclic service: Thermal cycling can affect stress corrosion and

fatigue; 17-4PH is more sensitive to stress corrosion cracking in cyclic
wet steam conditions.
  Steam chemistry: Dissolved oxygen, chlorides, sulfides — 17-4PH can
be more sensitive to SCC than F6a in wet/cyclic steam.

3. Practical considerations

 If your steam service is low temperature (<300°C), low chloride,

and limited duration, 630 SS / 17-4PH may be acceptable.

 If design temperature > 300°C, long-term operation, or high-

pressure / high-ΔP steam, then F6a should be retained.

 Remember hardening condition: H900 (high hardness) vs H1025

(higher toughness) — choose according to valve/thrust requirements.

 Verify welding / post-weld heat treatment compatibility. F6a is

standardized for welding in ASME B16.34 / B31.1 service.

4. Key vendor requirements if considering substitution

 Material certificates for 17-4PH including ageing condition.

 Hardness readings on critical parts (if load-bearing).

 Creep/oxidation data for steam exposure (temperature & pressure).

 Seat leakage test and full functional test (valve-specific).

 Chemical composition verification to avoid SCC risks.

✅ Bottom line

 For low-temp steam (<300°C), 630 SS / 17-4PH is often

acceptable as a substitute for F6a.

 For standard high-temp steam valves/piping (400–450°C), high-

pressure, or cyclic wet steam, retain F6a — 17-4PH does not
provide guaranteed long-term corrosion/oxidation resistance in that
regime.
If you want, I can make a quick comparison table for F6a vs 630
SS including max recommended steam temperature, stress, and SCC risk —
so you can justify substitution to your vendor or engineer.

Do you want me to make that table?

You said:

what is 630 ss or 17-4 PH?

ChatGPT said:

630 SS is the UNS S17400 grade, also commonly called 17-4PH stainless
steel. They are the same material — “17-4PH” is the common name in
engineering, “630 SS” is the UNS designation. Here’s a clear breakdown:

1. Type of steel

 Martensitic, precipitation-hardening stainless steel (PH

stainless)

 Combines high strength, good corrosion resistance, and

hardness with moderate toughness.

 “17-4PH” name comes from approximate 17% Cr, 4% Ni composition.

2. Typical chemical composition

%
Element (approx)

Chromium
(Cr) 15–17

Nickel (Ni) 3–5

Copper (Cu) 3–5

Manganese
(Mn) ≤1
 %
Element (approx)

Carbon (C) ≤0.07

Iron (Fe) Balance

3. Mechanical properties (as aged, H900 condition typical)

Property Value

Yield strength~1100 MPa

Tensile
strength ~1240 MPa

Elongation ~10–12%

Hardness HRC ~40–45

Moderate, depends on aging

Toughness condition

 H1025 aging gives slightly lower hardness (~HRC 35–40) but higher
toughness.

4. Key characteristics

 Strength: High, due to martensitic structure + precipitation

hardening.

 Corrosion resistance: Good for general environments; less resistant

than 316 in chlorides.
  Wear resistance: Moderate; can be surface hardened or plated for
better sliding/cavitation resistance.

 Heat treatment:

1. Solution anneal (1050°C) → quench

2. Aging (H900, H1025, H1075) → precipitation of copper phases

strengthens steel

 Applications: Valve stems, pump shafts, fasteners, chemical

processing equipment, aircraft parts, general purpose stainless parts
needing high strength + corrosion resistance.

5. Comparison with AISI 410

Property 17-4PH / 630 SS AISI 410

Type Martensitic PH Martensitic

Cr 15–17% 11–13%

Higher
Strength (H900/H1025) Lower

Hardness HRC 35–45 HRC 28–35

Corrosion
resistance Better Moderate

Quench +
Heat treatment Solution + age temper

In short: 17-4PH / 630 SS is a stronger, corrosion-resistant, age-

hardenable stainless alternative to 410 and is widely used in valve
trims, shafts, and other high-strength stainless applications.
If you want, I can make a diagram showing 17-4PH structure, aging
process, and comparison to 410 and Stellite, which makes it very clear
why it’s chosen for valve trims and stems.

Do you want me to make that diagram?

You said:

cr and ni % in SS 316 and UNS S31803?

ChatGPT said:

Here’s a clear comparison of Chromium (Cr) and Nickel (Ni)

content for SS 316 and UNS S31803 (Duplex 2205):

Cr Ni
Material (%) (%) Notes

SS 316 16– 10– Standard austenitic stainless steel, good general

(Austenitic) 18 14 corrosion resistance, moderate strength.

Duplex stainless (ferritic + austenitic), higher Cr for

UNS S31803 / 21– 4.5– corrosion and pitting resistance, lower Ni due to
Duplex 2205 23 6.5 ferritic fraction, much higher strength than 316.

Key points:

 SS 316: More Ni → fully austenitic → excellent toughness and ductility.

 Duplex 2205 (S31803): Higher Cr and Mo, lower Ni → duplex

microstructure → higher strength and better pitting/crevice corrosion
resistance than 316, but less ductile.

If you want, I can make a full alloy comparison table including Cr, Ni,
Mo, and other key elements for SS 304, SS 316, 1.4571, and duplex 2205
for quick reference in valve and piping applications.

Do you want me to make that?

You said:

mounting kit material of vendor offer is 304 SS instead of CS with coating or

SSS 316, can we accept for control valve?

ChatGPT said:
Here’s a careful evaluation:

1. Typical mounting kit function

 The mounting kit includes brackets, yokes, bolts, and other hardware
to attach the actuator to the control valve.

 Its function is structural and does not see process fluid directly.

 Requirements: sufficient strength, corrosion resistance for the ambient

environment, dimensional stability, and long-term durability.

2. Vendor offer vs typical spec

Parameter Vendor Offer Typical Spec

Material SS 304 CS (coated) or SS 316

Yield ~215 MPa, Tensile CS coated: higher tensile (~250–400

Strength ~505 MPa MPa), SS 316: ~290–580 MPa

Corrosion Good in ambient air / CS coated: relies on coating, SS 316:

resistance indoor / mild outdoor better in chloride / outdoor / marine

Cost Moderate CS coated: lower, SS 316: higher

Observation:

 304 SS is austenitic, corrosion-resistant in mild environments.

 If the mounting kit is exposed to indoor/covered environment, 304

SS is acceptable.

 If the mounting kit is outdoors, near seawater, chloride spray, or

chemical exposure, 304 SS may corrode over
time (pitting/crevice). In that case, CS with coating or 316 SS is
preferred.
3. Key parameters to consider

1. Ambient environment

 Indoor / dry → 304 SS usually fine.

 Outdoor / humid / marine → 316 SS or coated CS preferred.

2. Mechanical load / strength

 Ensure 304 SS thickness and geometry can handle actuator

torque and valve load. Usually acceptable, as mounting kits are
over-designed.

3. Temperature

 Ambient to moderate temperatures (<100°C) → 304 SS is fine.

4. Compatibility / galvanic

 If mounting hardware touches dissimilar metals (e.g., carbon

steel actuator or painted valve yoke), galvanic corrosion risk
should be checked.

4. Practical recommendation

 Indoor, mild environment: 304 SS acceptable.

 Outdoor, marine, or aggressive environment: reject 304 SS;

require SS 316 or CS with durable coating (epoxy / zinc + primer / hot-
dip).

 Ensure torque / load ratings of the mounting kit are met.

5. Example PO acceptance wording

“Mounting kit material may be SS 304 if exposed to mild indoor environment

and designed to carry actuator and valve loads. For outdoor, marine, or
aggressive chemical environment, require SS 316 or CS with suitable coating.
Vendor shall confirm torque rating, material certificates, and dimensional
compliance.”
If you want, I can make a quick decision table for control valve mounting
kits showing acceptable material by environment (304 / 316 / CS
coated) — very handy for approval.

Do you want me to make that table?

You said:

tightness class IV vs V which is more stringent?

ChatGPT said:

Tightness Class V is more stringent than Class IV.

Here’s the explanation:

1. Background

 API 598 (Valve Inspection & Test) defines leakage classes for gate,
globe, and check valves.

 Leakage is expressed as % of valve full open capacity or as

ml/min leakage per inch of valve size.

 Higher class number = lower allowable leakage = more

stringent.

2. Typical leakage classes (API 598 / ANSI)

Clas
s Leakage Allowance Notes

Very low tightness, usually small

I 2% of valve full open capacity isolation valves

II 1% Moderate

III 0.5% Tight, general isolation service

IV 0.1% Very tight shutoff

Clas
s Leakage Allowance Notes

Maximum tightness, essentially no

V 0.01% or “bubble-tight” measurable leakage

Soft-seated valves, tested with

VI water, “virtually zero” Only for resilient seats

Observation:

 Class IV → very low leakage (0.1%)

 Class V → even lower leakage (0.01% or bubble-tight)

3. Practical interpretation

 Class IV: acceptable for most high-pressure isolation or control

service.

 Class V: required for critical tight shutoff, hazardous fluids, or severe

leakage-sensitive applications.

 Increasing tightness class often requires harder seating materials

(Stellite, CoCr, WC), better machining finish, and
sometimes higher actuator torque.

✅ Conclusion:

Tightness Class V is more stringent than Class IV.

If you want, I can make a quick reference table of API leakage classes
I–V with typical valve types, seat materials, and applications — useful for
specifying control valves.

Do you want me to make that?

You said:

overlay of nickel based material

ChatGPT said:
Nickel-based overlays are widely used in valves, pumps, and other
equipment for erosion, corrosion, cavitation, and high-temperature
wear resistance. Here’s a structured summary:

1. What is a Nickel-Based Overlay

 A thin layer of nickel alloy (Ni-Cr, Ni-Cr-B, Ni-Cr-Fe, etc.) welded

or deposited on a base metal (carbon steel, stainless, or martensitic
steel).

 Provides surface hardness, corrosion resistance, and

erosion/cavitation resistance without requiring the entire
component to be made of expensive nickel alloy.

2. Common Nickel-Based Alloys for Overlay

Alloy Typical Use Properties

Stellite 6 (Co-
based, often Ni- Valve seats, Excellent cavitation/erosion, high
rich) plug/trim hardness, corrosion resistant

Ni-Cr-B (e.g.,
Colmonoy 88, High erosion / sliding Very hard (HRC 55–60), excellent
Tribaloy T-400) surfaces wear resistance

High Ni-Cr-Mo content, corrosion

Inconel 625 / 718 High temp / resistant, oxidation resistant, high-
overlay corrosive media temp strength

Acidic/corrosive Excellent corrosion resistance in

Ni-Cu alloys (e.g., fluids (HCl, chloride environments, moderate
Monel 400) seawater) hardness

Key: Choose overlay based on service fluid, ΔP, cavitation risk,

temperature, and base material compatibility.
3. Application Methods

 Weld overlay: TIG, Plasma Transferred Arc (PTA), or Submerged Arc

Welding (SAW).

 Thermal spraying: HVOF (High-Velocity Oxy-Fuel) or plasma spray —

thin coatings, moderate bond.

 Laser cladding: Precise, low dilution, minimal heat-affected zone.

Important: Control dilution (<10–15% typical) to preserve the alloy

properties.

4. Advantages

 Cost-efficient: Only wear/corrosion areas are overlaid.

 Improved service life: Seats, plugs, and flow surfaces resist

cavitation, erosion, and corrosion.

 Flexible: Can be applied to carbon steel, stainless, or martensitic base

materials.

5. Key Vendor / QA Requirements

1. Overlay thickness — typically 1.5–3 mm on severe service surfaces.

2. Hardness check — HRC measured after overlay, target depends on

alloy (Stellite ~40–48, Ni-Cr-B ~55–60).

3. Dilution control — measured to ensure overlay properties are

preserved.

4. Metallography — macro/micro check for cracks, porosity, and fusion.

5. Material certificates — base metal and filler alloy.

6. NDT — VT/PT/MT on critical overlay surfaces.

7. Seat leakage or functional test — post-overlay to verify tightness.

6. Typical Applications
  Valve plug & seat in globe, gate, and control valves for high ΔP /
cavitation service.

 Pump impellers exposed to erosive fluids.

 High-temperature steam or chemical service where base steel is

inadequate.

 Sliding surfaces prone to fretting or erosion.

✅ Summary:
A nickel-based overlay is a surface engineering solution that
provides high hardness, corrosion and cavitation resistance while
keeping costs lower than solid nickel alloy components. The alloy selection
and application method depend on fluid chemistry, ΔP, cavitation,
temperature, and base metal compatibility.

If you want, I can make a quick table of common nickel-based overlay

alloys with typical HRC, suitable base metal, and service
environment — very handy for control valve trim selection.

Do you want me to make that table?

You said:

22% cr vs 25% cr DSS?

ChatGPT said:

Here’s a clear comparison between Duplex Stainless Steels (DSS) with

22% Cr vs 25% Cr:

1. Overview

 Duplex Stainless Steel (DSS) has a mixed ferritic + austenitic

microstructure (~50/50) that gives high strength and excellent
corrosion resistance.

 Increasing chromium (Cr) content generally improves pitting,

crevice, and general corrosion resistance, but may slightly reduce
toughness if not balanced with nickel and nitrogen.
2. Typical compositions

Cr Ni Mo
Alloy (%) (%) (%) N (%) Notes

Standard DSS
(e.g., 2205 / UNS 21– 4.5– 0.14– Widely used; balanced corrosion
S31803) 23 6.5 2–3 0.20 resistance & strength.

Super DSS (e.g., Higher Cr & Mo → superior

2507 / UNS 24– 0.24– pitting/crevice resistance, often
S32750) 25 6–7 3–4 0.32 called “25% Cr DSS”.

So 22% Cr DSS is standard duplex (2205), 25% Cr DSS is super duplex

(2507).

3. Key differences

Property 22% Cr DSS 25% Cr DSS

Good general corrosion; Excellent pitting and crevice

good pitting resistance in corrosion resistance; suitable for
Corrosion moderately aggressive very aggressive chloride/brine/sea
resistance chlorides water

Yield /
tensile Slightly higher (~500–550 MPa /
strength ~450 MPa / 620 MPa 750–800 MPa)

Impact Slightly lower at room temp (still

toughness Very good high)

Temperature
limits ~300–350°C ~300–350°C
Property 22% Cr DSS 25% Cr DSS

Cost /
availability Lower Higher; less widely stocked

4. Practical guidance

1. Use 22% Cr DSS (2205) for most chemical, brackish water, or mild
seawater applications.

2. Use 25% Cr DSS (2507) for very aggressive chloride

environments, high chloride concentration, or high pitting potential.

3. Other considerations: Both require controlled welding and heat

treatment; super duplex (25% Cr) may need post-weld solution anneal
to restore pitting resistance.

✅ Summary:

 22% Cr DSS = standard duplex (2205) → good strength + corrosion

resistance.

 25% Cr DSS = super duplex (2507) → stronger + superior corrosion

resistance in very aggressive environments.

If you want, I can make a quick comparison table of 22% Cr vs 25% Cr

DSS, including pitting resistance number (PREN), tensile strength,
and typical applications — very handy for material selection in valves and
piping.

Do you want me to make that table?

You said:

416SS HT steam material can be alternative for ASTM A182 F316/316LXM-

19?

ChatGPT said:
Short answer: No — 416 SS (hardened martensitic) is generally not a
suitable alternative for ASTM A182 F316 / 316LXM-19 in steam
service, even at moderate temperatures. Here’s why, with key
considerations:

1. Material comparison

ASTM A182 F316 /

Property 316LXM-19 416 SS HT

Austenitic stainless (316, low Martensitic stainless (Cr ~12%,

Type C, molybdenum) C ~0.15%)

Microstructure Fully austenitic Martensitic (hardened)

Excellent general corrosion, Moderate; susceptible to stress

Corrosion good chloride and steam corrosion cracking, less
resistance resistance pitting resistance

Limited; higher temps reduce

Temperature Steam up to 400–450°C strength and increase corrosion
service typical risk

Yield ~205–240 MPa, tensile Hardened: yield ~700–1100

Strength 485–620 MPa MPa, tensile ~750–1200 MPa

Lower, depends on hardening

Toughness Excellent condition

Moderate; heat input must be

Weldability Excellent controlled

Observation:

 416 SS HT is strong and can be hardened, but it is not corrosion-

resistant enough for long-term steam service, especially if there’s
any moisture or oxygen.
  Steam environments can cause pitting, crevice corrosion, or stress
corrosion cracking in 416 SS.

2. Service considerations

1. Temperature: Steam service may reach 400–450°C — austenitic 316

is proven; 416 SS may oxidize and degrade at prolonged exposure.

2. Corrosion environment: Even low-chloride steam can cause

localized attack on 416 SS over time.

3. Mechanical load: 416 SS is stronger, but strength alone cannot

substitute corrosion resistance.

4. Weldability and post-weld corrosion: 416 SS is sensitive; post-weld

hardness may induce brittleness and local corrosion.

3. When 416 SS could be considered

 Only for non-critical, low-pressure, low-temperature dry

steam (<200–250°C), and where corrosion is negligible.

 Even then, it’s not standard practice — most codes (ASME B16.34 /
B31.1) require F316 / 316L for steam valves/fittings.

✅ Conclusion

 416 SS HT cannot replace A182 F316 / 316LXM-19 in standard

steam service.

 Austenitic F316 / 316L is preferred for corrosion resistance, high-

temperature steam stability, and proven long-term service.

If you want, I can make a quick comparison table for 416 SS HT vs

F316/F316LXM-19 showing temperature limits, corrosion resistance,
strength, and suitability for steam valves, which is handy for vendor
discussions.

Do you want me to make that table?

You said:
is 416 SS HT can replace AISI 410?

ChatGPT said:

Short answer: Yes, 416 SS HT can generally replace AISI 410 in many
applications, but there are important considerations.

Here’s a structured comparison:

1. Material comparison

Property AISI 410 416 SS HT

Martensitic stainless, with added free

Type Martensitic stainless machining C + S

Chromium 11–13% 12–14%

Carbon 0.08–0.15% 0.15–0.20% (varies)

Hardening Quench + temper Quench + temper / age-hardened

Corrosion Slightly better due to finer martensitic

resistance Moderate structure; still moderate

Yield ~415 MPa, Hardened: Yield ~700–1100 MPa,

Strength Tensile ~620 MPa Tensile ~750–1200 MPa

Machinability Moderate Excellent (free machining grade)

Observation:

 Both are martensitic stainless steels, so chemical, microstructure,

and heat-treatment options are compatible.

 416 SS HT offers higher hardness and strength, plus improved

machinability, but corrosion resistance is similar to 410.
2. Key considerations for replacement

1. Mechanical properties

 416 SS HT is stronger and harder → may increase wear on

mating parts if not accounted for.

2. Corrosion resistance

 Similar to 410 → acceptable if service is moderate, non-

aggressive environment.

3. Heat treatment

 Ensure 416 SS HT is supplied in proper hardened

condition compatible with the design loads.

4. Compatibility with mating surfaces

 Higher hardness can increase galling risk against soft seating

surfaces or bushings.

5. Welding

 416 SS is free machining but not easily welded — welding may

require filler or post-weld heat treatment. 410 is also weldable
but needs similar precautions.

✅ Conclusion

 416 SS HT is generally a suitable replacement for AISI 410,

especially where higher strength or machinability is desired.

 It cannot be used where corrosion resistance needs to exceed

410, or in high-temperature steam or highly oxidizing environments
without careful assessment.

If you want, I can make a quick replacement guide table for 410 → 416
HT, showing strength, hardness, corrosion, and application notes —
very handy for valve trim or stem evaluation.

Do you want me to make that table?

You said:
difference between ASTM A105 normalized vs ASTM A105

ChatGPT said:

Here’s a detailed comparison between ASTM A105 and **ASTM

A105 normalized (sometimes called A105N):

1. Base Standard

 ASTM A105: Standard specification for carbon steel forgings for

piping components (flanges, fittings, valves) for ambient- and
higher-temperature service.

 Material is quenched and tempered / heat treated to achieve the

required mechanical properties.

 ASTM A105 normalized (A105N): Same chemical composition and

general specification as A105, but the forging is normalized rather
than quenched/tempered.

2. Heat treatment / Microstructure

Material Heat Treatment Microstructure / Properties

Fine tempered ferrite + pearlite; higher

Usually quenched & yield & tensile strength; tougher; less
ASTM A105 tempered risk of hot shortness

Ferrite + pearlite; slightly lower

Normalized strength; more uniform grain structure;
ASTM A105 only (heated above improved toughness at low temp;
normalized AC3, then air cooled) slightly lower hardness

Key: Normalizing produces a more homogeneous microstructure, while

quenched/tempered increases strength and hardness.

3. Mechanical properties
 ASTM
Property A105 ASTM A105N

Tensile 485–620 ~415–585 MPa (slightly

strength MPa lower)

Yield strength≥250 MPa ≥205 MPa (slightly lower)

Elongation 20–40% 25–40%

HRC ~20– Lower than

Hardness 25 quenched/tempered

Exact values depend on pipe size, wall thickness, and forging size.

4. Typical applications

 A105 (quenched/tempered):

 High-strength flanges, valves, fittings

 Moderate/high temperature service (steam, gas)

 Situations where strength is critical

 A105 normalized (A105N):

 General piping components at ambient temperature

 Better toughness and ductility

 Low-to-moderate pressure applications

 Preferred for welded piping systems where uniform grain and

reduced residual stress are beneficial

5. Key differences in practice

Feature A105 A105 Normalized

Strength Higher Slightly lower

Better low-temp
Toughness Good toughness

Grain
uniformity Less uniform More uniform

Residual
stress Higher (from quench) Lower (air cooling)

Slightly higher (quenching

Cost step) Slightly lower

Note: Some specs allow either, as long as mechanical property

minimums are met.

✅ Summary:

 A105N = same chemistry as A105, but normalized → slightly lower

strength, better low-temp toughness, more uniform grain.

 Use A105 if higher strength is required; use A105N if toughness

and uniformity are more critical or for welded applications.

If you want, I can make a quick side-by-side comparison chart of A105

vs A105N including heat treatment, tensile/yield, toughness, and
typical applications — handy for piping/valve selection.

Do you want me to make that chart?

You said:

can we use ASTM A105 in the place of ASTM A105N vice versa?

ChatGPT said:
Good question 👍 — the short answer is:

Yes, ASTM A105 and ASTM A105N can sometimes be used

interchangeably, but not always — it depends on the service
condition and the project/specification.

1. Standards perspective

 ASTM A105 is the base material spec.

 A105N is not a separate ASTM grade, but a project/specification

requirement meaning A105 forgings shall be normalized.

 In many EPC / oil & gas specs, “A105N” is explicitly required for:

 Low-temperature service (to improve toughness)

 Welded construction (better grain uniformity, less residual

stress)

 Critical services (to ensure consistency across heat lots).

2. Substitution rules

Substitutio
n Acceptability Reason

A105N meets A105 chemistry and generally

A105N in exceeds toughness requirements, though
place of strength may be slightly lower (but still within
A105 ✅ Acceptable ASTM limits).

If project/spec or end user demands

A105 in “Normalized,” supplying quenched/tempered or
place of ⚠️Not always as-forged A105 may be rejected — especially in
A105N acceptable cryogenic/low-temp or welded service.

3. Key considerations before substitution

 1. Project specifications – Some operators (Shell, Total, Aramco, etc.)
mandate A105N for all flanges/fittings regardless of service.

2. Temperature – At low temperatures (<–20 °C), A105N is safer

because of improved impact toughness.

3. Strength – A105 can be slightly stronger, but both typically exceed

minimum requirements.

4. Weldability – A105N is usually preferred for welded systems due to

lower residual stresses.

5. Certification – If the PO says “A105N”, you must supply normalized

material — otherwise it will fail QA/QC review.

✅ Conclusion

 A105N can always replace A105 (safer choice).

 A105 cannot always replace A105N — depends on whether the

service conditions and project specs demand normalized condition.

👉 If you like, I can prepare a decision tree / quick reference chart (when
A105 is OK, when A105N is mandatory) that you can use for vendor
clarifications. Do you want me to draft that?

You said:

the above case with high temperature service ?

ChatGPT said:

Thought for 7s

Good question — high-temperature changes the game. Short answer up

front:

For elevated-temperature service you must base the decision on (1)

the actual design temperature & pressure, (2) required long-term
creep/rupture performance and (3) applicable code allowable
stresses.
In general quenched & tempered A105 (typical A105) gives higher
strength than normalized A105N, but neither A105 nor A105N are
purpose-designed for prolonged, high-temperature creep service.
For many true “high-temperature” applications you should instead consider
specified high-temperature steels (Cr-Mo grades, ASME P-grades or stainless
alloys) whose allowable stresses at elevated temperature are published in
ASME Section II Part D.

Below I’ve broken the guidance into clear practical points so you can apply it
to your project.

1) Define “high temperature” for your system

 Moderate elevated temp: up to ~200–300 °C (392–572 °F).

 High temp (critical): >300 °C and especially above ~400 °C (752

°F).

Which bucket you are in drives acceptability.

2) Performance differences: A105 (QT) vs A105N at elevated

temperature

 A105 (quenched & tempered)

 Generally higher yield/tensile strength at room temp and

retains higher strength at modest elevated temperatures vs
normalized.

 Quench & temper gives a tempered martensitic/pearlitic

microstructure optimized for strength.

 A105N (normalized)

 Better toughness and more uniform grain structure,

but lower static strength than quenched & tempered
condition.

 Normalizing improves weldability and reduces residual stresses

but does not improve creep/rupture behaviour.

Implication: If a carbon-steel forging is to be used in an elevated-

temperature pressure boundary where strength is the controlling
parameter, A105 (QT) is normally preferred over A105N — but only up
to the temperature where carbon steel is appropriate.
3) Critical checks you must perform before permitting substitution
in high-temp service

1. What is the design temperature and design pressure?

 Lookup ASME allowable stresses (S) at that temperature for

the candidate material. If A105 (or the forging material) has no
published S value at the design temperature, you cannot use it
per code.

2. Is long-term creep/rupture a factor?

 If the component is loaded for long durations at elevated

temperature, you need materials with creep data (e.g., Cr-Mo
steels P11/P22, A182 grades, high-temp stainless). Plain carbon
steels (A105/A105N) are usually not chosen for creep-critical
service above certain temps.

3. Is oxidation / scaling a concern?

 At higher temperatures oxidation/scale or carburization may

reduce life — consider alloy selection accordingly.

4. Welding & PWHT requirements

 High-temp carbon steels often require specific PWHT to control

microstructure and relieve stresses. Confirm code/PO PWHT
requirements. Normalizing vs tempering effects must be
compatible with PWHT schedule.

5. Code / client spec constraints

 Client or project specs may mandate A105N for certain services

(e.g., low temp or welded systems). For high temp, they may
mandate specific high-temp alloys—don’t override without
approval.

6. Fatigue / thermal cycling

 Repeated thermal cycles demand materials with suitable

toughness and thermal stability. Normalized steels can help
toughness, but that may not offset poor high-temp creep life.

4) Practical rules-of-thumb
  If design T ≤ ~200–250 °C and no creep requirement: A105 (QT) or
A105N may be acceptable depending on toughness/weld requirements.
Favor A105 (QT) if strength is needed.

 If design T between ~250–350 °C: check ASME allowable stresses

at that temperature. Use A105 only if code allows and if no creep
considerations.

 If design T > ~350–400 °C (or long-term loaded): do not rely on

A105/A105N. Select a material with documented elevated-temperature
capability (e.g., Cr-Mo alloys such as P11/P22, or high-temperature
austenitic alloys / ASME A182 grades) and follow code requirements for
PWHT, creep data, etc.

 If the component is part of a pressure boundary under ASME

B31.1 / B31.3, always confirm allowable stresses from ASME II for the
exact material and condition.

5) Recommended acceptance actions / PO wording for high-temp

cases

1. Require vendor to confirm: design temperature, design pressure

and service duration.

2. Require material allowable stress proof: “Vendor shall confirm the

candidate material (A105 or A105N) has ASME Section II allowable
stress values at the design temperature. If not, a higher temperature
material shall be supplied.”

3. If component is used above 300 °C: “Do not substitute

A105/A105N. Use approved high-temperature alloy specified by project
(e.g., P11/P22 or specified A182 grade).”

4. Require MTC & heat-treat record: proof of heat treatment (QT or

normalized) and post-weld heat treatment (if applicable).

5. If substitution is proposed: require engineering justification from

vendor with mechanical property curves vs temperature (tensile &
creep), and client approval.

Example PO clause you can drop in:

“For components exposed to temperatures above ___ °C (fill in design

threshold), ASTM A105 / A105N are not acceptable unless vendor provides
documented ASME allowable stress values and creep/rupture data
demonstrating suitability. Where not demonstrable, vendor shall supply an
approved elevated-temperature alloy per project material list.”

6) Final summary — direct answer to your question

 Can A105 replace A105N in high-temperature service?

 No automatic substitution. For strength-critical elevated-

temperature service A105 (quenched & tempered) is usually
preferable to A105N, but neither may be suitable if the
temperature and time produce creep or oxidation
concerns. Always check ASME allowable stresses and creep
requirements. If the service is truly high-temperature, use a
material specified for elevated-temperature service (Cr–Mo or
appropriate austenitic/high-temp alloy) instead.

If you tell me the exact design temperature and pressure and whether
the component is in a pressure-boundary (welded flange/valve body)
and if it will see continuous service (hours/years) or short duty, I’ll
give a concrete recommendation and a short PO clause you can use.

You said:

is 420 SS HT or 440C SS heat treated shall be replacement for AISI 410 SS /

Colmonoy overlay?

ChatGPT said:

Thought for a couple of seconds

Short answer up front: Maybe for some wear applications — but

generally NO as a direct substitute for a Colmonoy (nickel-based)
overlay in severe erosion / cavitation service.
420 HT or 440C (heat-treated) are hardenable martensitic stainless steels
and can replace AISI-410 in many wear situations, but they are not true
equivalents to a nickel-based hardfacing (Colmonoy) for high ΔP,
cavitation, impingement or highly abrasive services.

Below I’ll explain why, what to check, and exactly what vendor evidence you
should require if you consider the substitution.
1) Quick material comparison — the essentials

 AISI-410 — martensitic stainless, moderate hardness after tempering,

decent toughness, reasonable corrosion resistance. Common trim/stem
material.

 420 SS HT — martensitic stainless that can be hardened to higher

HRC than 410; improved wear resistance but reduced toughness when
taken to very high hardness. Welding is more difficult; corrosion similar
or slightly better than 410 depending on heat-treatment.

 440C SS (heat treated) — high-carbon martensitic stainless able to

reach very high hardness (HRC 55–63). Excellent abrasion/wear
resistance, but low toughness, poor resistance to cyclic impact, and
more prone to cracking and corrosion in aggressive media.

 Colmonoy / Ni-Cr-B overlay (nickel-based) — metallurgically very

different: very hard (depending on alloy), superb
sliding/erosion/cavitation resistance, good corrosion resistance in many
media, applied as a weld/overlay with controlled dilution. Designed to
protect softer bases from cavitation/erosion.

2) Can 420 / 440C replace AISI-410?

 Yes, conditionally. If the service is clean, low ΔP, no

cavitation/impinging jets, and wear is predominantly
sliding/abrasion (not severe impact/cavitation), a properly heat
treated 420 or 440C trim can outperform 410 on wear.

 Caveats:

 440C at very high hardness is brittle — risk of cracking under

impact or vibration.

 Both require careful specification of heat treatment, final

hardness, and toughness; mating surfaces and packing must be
evaluated to avoid excessive galling.

3) Can 420 / 440C replace a Colmonoy overlay?

 No, not in severe cavitation/erosion/impingement service.

  Colmonoy (and other Ni-Cr or Co-based overlays) is chosen
because the overlay retains hardness and integrity under
cavitation/jet impingement and maintains sealing life.

 A monolithic hardened martensitic piece (420/440C) will wear

differently and may fail far sooner under cavitation or high ΔP
jets. 440C may chip or crack; 420 will soften/erode faster than a
proper Ni/Co overlay in these conditions.

4) Other practical risks of using 420 / 440C

 Galling / seizure — very hard mating surfaces can increase galling on

softer counterparts (stem vs seat or seat vs body) unless proper
pairing, coatings, or lubricants are used.

 Brittleness — higher hardness → lower toughness; fatigue/impact

failures likely in vibrating/cavitating environments.

 Weldability / repairs — 440C/420 are more difficult to weld/repair

than lower-carbon martensitics; overlays (Colmonoy) are serviceable
by overlay welding.

 Corrosion — high-C steels can be less corrosion tolerant than lower-C

410 in certain environments; 440C is not great in chloride
environments compared with stainless austenitics or some overlays.

5) When substitution is acceptable (decision checklist)

Accept 420 HT / 440C in place of AISI-410 if ALL of the following are true:

 Service no cavitation, no flashing, no impinging jets.

 Low to moderate ΔP across the valve (no severe erosion risk).

 Abrasive particles are minimal (low solids ppm) OR particles are small
and abrasion only.

 Design temperature is within acceptable range for the chosen

temper/hardness (your usual 65 °C is fine).

 You require increased wear resistance and are prepared to manage

brittleness/galling risks.

 Vendor provides full proof (see next section).

Reject substitution if any of: cavitation/erosion, high ΔP jets, high solids,
critical safety isolation requiring long leak-free life.

6) Vendor deliverables / acceptance tests you MUST require

If you will consider 420/440C substitution, require all of the following before
acceptance:

1. Service justification: vendor to confirm ΔP, velocity at trim, solids

ppm/size, cavitation risk.

2. MTC (EN10204 3.1) for the parts.

3. Heat-treatment record: hardening/tempering schedule and proof the

part is in the specified condition.

4. Hardness map / spot readings across plug/seat/contact band

(specify target HRC; e.g., 420 HT HRC 30–45, 440C HRC up to 58 —
pick based on tradeoffs).

5. Toughness check or acceptance criterion (Charpy or equivalent) if

the part may see impact/vibration — for 440C you may demand
minimum impact energy.

6. Microstructure / metallography to verify no excessive retained

austenite, no cracks, acceptable grain.

7. NDT (VT + PT/MT) on seating faces and any critical welds.

8. Seat leakage test to project leakage class (API-598/FCI) after final

machining.

9. Functional cycle test (stroke / cycles) to demonstrate no cracking,

sticking or galling.

10. Field history or lab wear data comparing the proposed

material to 410 and to Colmonoy overlay if claiming equivalence.

11. Warranty / maintenance plan acknowledging expected

reduced life vs overlaid trim if that’s the case.

7) Recommended PO wording (sample)

“Substitution of AISI-410 with 420 HT or 440C shall be accepted only if
service is non-cavitating and vendor provides: MTC (3.1), heat-treatment
records, hardness map with HRC –, metallography, NDT (VT + PT/MT), seat
leakage test to [API-598], and functional cycle test. Substitution is not
acceptable in services with cavitation, impinging jets, high ΔP erosion, or
where Colmonoy (or equivalent Ni-based overlay) was specified for long life.
Vendor to provide field test data demonstrating equal or superior life to
specified material; otherwise require Colmonoy overlay as per PO.”

(Adjust HRC target and leakage spec to your project.)

8) Alternatives to consider

 If you need improved wear and reasonable toughness: hardened 17-

4PH (aged) or tempered 420 (moderate hardness) — better toughness
vs 440C.

 If cavitation/erosion is a concern: keep Colmonoy / Ni-Cr alloy

overlay or Co-Cr (Stellite) or WC composite inserts — these are proven
for severe services.

 Hybrid: use martensitic base (420/17-4PH) + Colmonoy

overlay on the critical seating/impingement areas — common
practice.

9) Bottom line (one line)

 420 HT / 440C can replace AISI-410 for wear in benign (non-

cavitating, low ΔP) services if you control heat-treat, hardness and
galling; they must NOT be considered substitutes for Colmonoy
overlays where cavitation/erosion resistance is required.

If you want, I can:

 Draft the exact PO rejection/acceptance paragraph with HRC numbers

for your project, or

 Produce a 1-page decision matrix (service severity vs recommended

trim: 410 / 17-4PH / 420 / 440C / Colmonoy) you can attach to the
valve spec.
Which would you like?

You said:

in that case AISI 410 is suitable for the flashing and cavitation?

ChatGPT said:

Thought for a few seconds

Short answer: No — AISI 410 by itself is generally not the preferred

material for sustained flashing/cavitation service. It may
survive mild or short-duration events, but for true cavitation/flash erosion
you should specify hardfacing (Stellite, Colmonoy, WC, etc.) or solid
inserts on the plug/seat and use anti-cavitation trim designs.

Below is a compact, practical explanation and what to do instead.

Why AISI 410 is poor for cavitation/flashing

 Mechanism: cavitation causes repeated micro-jet impacts and high

local pressure spikes when bubbles collapse → leads to fatigue
erosion (pitting, cratering) on exposed surfaces. Flashing creates two-
phase jet impingement and severe erosive wear.

 AISI 410 properties: martensitic stainless with moderate hardness

and toughness. It will erode and pit quickly under high ΔP cavitation
jets or sustained flashing. It softens and loses geometry faster than
hardfacing alloys.

 Result: seat/plug geometry will degrade, leakage will increase, and life
will be short compared with appropriate overlays/inserts.

When AISI 410 might be acceptable

Only if all the following are true:

 ΔP is low and cavitation/flashing is mild or intermittent, not

continuous.

 There are no abrasive solids / particulates in the fluid.

 System life/maintenance strategy accepts frequent trim

replacement or inspection.
  Valve uses anti-cavitation trim (multi-stage, diffusers, cages) that
greatly reduces jet energy at the seat.

If any of the above is false, do not rely on plain 410.

Preferred solutions for cavitation/flashing

1. Stellite-6 (Co-Cr) overlay on plug & seat or solid Stellite inserts —

proven cavitation/corrosion resistance.

2. Nickel-based overlays (Colmonoy / Ni-Cr-B) for very high erosion

sliding wear.

3. Tungsten-carbide (WC) or WC-Co inserts for extreme

abrasive/impingement erosion.

4. Multi-stage / anti-cavitation trims (cage with staged reductions,

venturi/inlet diffusers, choke stages) to spread pressure drop and avoid
cavitation at a single seat.

5. Combination: robust base material (e.g., 17-4PH or 1.4418) +

hardfacing on contact/impingement surfaces.

Design & procurement controls (what to require if vendor still

proposes 410)

If vendor insists on AISI 410, require all of the following before acceptance
(and be prepared to reject if service is severe):

 Full service data: fluid composition, ΔP, inlet/outlet pressures,

temperature, vapor pressure, flow velocity, solids ppm and particle
size, cycling frequency.

 Cavitation index / risk assessment (Kc or sigma) and vendor

engineering justification that 410 is acceptable.

 If any cavitation exists, vendor must propose either hardfacing

(specify alloy & thickness) or anti-cavitation trim and provide test/field
data.

 Material certs (MTC) for AISI 410 and heat-treatment records.

 Wear / erosion test data or proven field history for identical service.
  Seat leakage test (API-598 / project leakage class) after final
assembly.

 Functional cycle test demonstrating no premature damage under

simulated service (including cavitation simulation if possible).

 Maintenance interval & warranty: vendor to state expected life and

teardown interval for the trim in this service.

Example PO wording (recommended)

“Stated service involves flashing/cavitation risk. Plain AISI-410 trim is not

acceptable for plug/seat surfaces. Trim shall be Stellite-6 overlay (or
Colmonoy / WC insert) on all impingement/contact surfaces, applied by
qualified WPS/PQR. Overlay min thickness 1.5–2.0 mm, dilution ≤15%,
overlay hardness HRC 40–48. Vendor to supply MTC, WPS/PQR, dilution
report, overlay hardness map, metallography, NDT and seat leakage test to
API-598. Anti-cavitation multi-stage trim to be considered where ΔP >
[specify]. Any deviation requires documented test evidence and client
approval.”

(You can change alloy, thickness and HRC to match project practice.)

Practical additional tips

 If replacement of existing trim is under consideration, compare actual

field wear data (time to leak/failure) for 410 vs overlaid trims.

 Prefer solid inserts (Stellite seat rings) for the most critical services —
overlays can delaminate if not properly applied.

 Use anti-cavitation trim geometry first — material upgrades alone

may not stop cavitation if the ΔP energy remains high and
concentrated.

Bottom line

 Plain AISI-410 is not a reliable choice for

flashing/cavitation except in the mildest cases with short exposure
and planned frequent maintenance.
  For real cavitation/flashing exposure, specify hardfacing (Stellite,
Colmonoy) or WC inserts and/or anti-cavitation trims to secure
life and tightness.

Want me to draft the exact vendor rejection/acceptance clause for your PO

(with ΔP threshold and overlay thickness filled in) so you can send it now?

You said:

HRC value for AISI 410 VS 420 SS HT VS 440C SS

ChatGPT said:

Great question — the hardness ranges (HRC) of AISI 410, 420 HT, and
440C vary widely depending on heat treatment (quench + temper). Here’s a
comparison you can use directly in valve trim/material selection discussions:

🔹 Hardness comparison (Rockwell C, HRC)

Typical Heat Hardness

Carbon Treatment Range
Material % State (HRC) Notes

~170–207
AISI 410 HB (~10–22 Soft, machinable
SS (martensitic) ~0.12% Annealed HRC) state

Most common trim

Hardened + condition (balance
tempered (500– ~35–45 of toughness &
600 °C) HRC wear)

Max hardened
(oil quenched, Up to ~50 Brittle, not used in
low temper) HRC practice

AISI 420 SS ~0.3–

(HT) 0.4% Annealed ~18–22 HRCMachinable
 Typical Heat Hardness
Carbon Treatment Range
Material % State (HRC) Notes

Hardened + ~48–52 Typical service

tempered HRC condition

Max hardened
(quenched +
tempered low Up to ~53– Very wear resistant,
temp) 55 HRC lower toughness

AISI 440C
SS (high C
martensitic) ~1.0% Annealed ~20–22 HRCSoft state

Hardened +
tempered ~55–58 Typical working
(standard) HRC condition

Max hardened Very high wear

(optimized heat resistance, but very
treatment) 58–62 HRC brittle

🔹 Key takeaways

 410 SS: moderate hardness (35–45 HRC in service), good toughness →

widely used for valve stems/trim in general service.

 420 SS HT: higher hardness (48–52 HRC) than 410, better wear
resistance but less toughness → good for trim subject to moderate
erosion/abrasion.

 440C SS: very high hardness (55–62 HRC), excellent wear resistance
but poor toughness → risky in cavitation/impact service; prone to
cracking.
✅ Rule of thumb for control valves:

 Use 410 (35–45 HRC) for general duty (balanced toughness + wear).

 Upgrade to 420 HT (~50 HRC) where higher wear resistance is

needed, but cavitation is not severe.

 Use 440C (~58 HRC) only if wear is dominant and cavitation/impact

loads are absent (e.g., very clean, sliding wear applications).

 For flashing/cavitation → don’t rely on these martensitics alone; go

with hardfacing overlays (Stellite, Colmonoy, WC).

Would you like me to also give you a direct comparison with Stellite-6
(Co-Cr hardfacing) hardness (HRC/Vickers) so you can see why overlays
are preferred in cavitation service?

ChatGPT can make mistakes. Check important info.