Welding Stainless Steel

Welding Stainless Steel
Questions and Answers
A Guide for Troubleshooting

Stainless Steel Welding-Related Problems
1st Edition
by
Damian J. Kotecki, Ph.D., FAWS
Reviewed by the
AWS Product Development Committee
This publication is designed to provide information in regard to the subject matter

covered. It is made available with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged
in the rendering of professional advice. Reliance upon the information contained in
this document should not be undertaken without an independent verification of its
application for a particular use. The publisher is not responsible for loss or damage
resulting from use of this publication. This document is not a consensus standard.
Users should refer to the applicable standards for their particular application.
WELDING STAINLESS STEELQUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Cover: 304L agricultural sprayer with a hemispherical head joined to a cylindrical body by a partial pene-
tration groove weld. Pitting started in the crevice formed by partial penetration, and pitting was promoted
by rust trickling out of the crevice pits and depositing on the vertical cylindrical wall which is also heavily
heat tinted from the partial penetration weld. The crevice, the rust, and the heat tint all contributed to pitting
of the cylindrical wall.
ISBN-13: 978-0-87171-298-9
2013 by American Welding Society
All rights reserved
Printed in the United States of America
Photocopy Rights. No portion of this document may be reproduced, stored in a

retrieval system, or transmitted in any form, including mechanical, photocopying,
recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the copyright owner.
Authorization to photocopy items for internal, personal, or educational classroom use

only or the internal, personal, or educational classroom use only of specific clients is
granted by the American Welding Society provided that the appropriate fee is paid to
the Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, tel: (978)
750-8400; Internet: <www.copyright.com>.
ii
About the Author

DAMIAN J. KOTECKI is president, Damian Kotecki Welding Consultants, Inc. He is
treasurer of the IIW and Chair of the A5D Subcommittee on Stainless Steel Filler
Metals, and is a member of the D1K Subcommittee on Stainless Steel Structural Weld-
ing, and WRC Subcommittee on Welding Stainless Steels and Nickel-Base Alloys. He
is a past chair of the A5 Committee on Filler Metals and Allied Materials, and served
as AWS president (20052006). Send questions to damian@damiankotecki.com, or
Damian Kotecki, c/o Welding Journal Dept., 8669 NW 36 St, # 130, Miami, FL 33166.
v
Preface
It is generally accepted that the history of stainless steels began with the first com-
mercial alloys in 1913, although it was known well before that year that chromium
imparted corrosion resistance to iron base alloys. The first commercial alloys were
approximately the same as todays Type 410 (martensitic stainless steel) and Type 302
(austenitic stainless steel). Initially, welding of these alloys was a considerable chal-
lenge because chromium oxide is quite refractory and interfered with wetting of weld
metal to base metal. Arc welding with covered electrodes solved that problem by mak-
ing use of fluxing ingredients that dissolved chromium oxide.
A second major problem with welding stainless steels was that the heat affected zone
tended to become sensitized due to chromium carbide precipitation. For many years, it
was quite common that a solution anneal heat treatment had to be applied after weld-
ing to remove sensitization, unless much more expensive low carbon alloys were pur-
chased. The very large cost differential between low carbon alloys and non-low carbon
alloys virtually vanished with the invention of the argon-oxygen decarburization
(AOD) method of refining stainless steels in 1955 and its proliferation around the
world in the following fifteen years or so.
By far, the most commonly welded stainless steel grades today are the austenitic
alloys such as 304L and 316L. For such alloys, it was learned that slight modification
of the filler metal composition to obtain a small amount of ferrite in the otherwise aus-
tenitic weld deposit greatly enhanced resistance to solidification cracking. With such
filler metals, welding of austenitic stainless steels is as easy, or even easier, than
welding of carbon steels. But ferrite is not possible in weld metal of certain austenitic
stainless steels, and then solidification cracking problems can arise.
Other stainless steel alloy systems are martensitic alloys, ferritic alloys, and duplex
alloys, each with their own special welding concerns. Over the last 40 years, numer-
ous questions have been posed to the author concerning the best way of welding for a
given application. Many of these questions have arisen often enough that the Stain-
less Q&A column in the Welding Journal was begun in 1999. It was not envisioned in
1999 that the column would prove as popular as it has, nor was it envisioned that the
number of questions that can be asked would prove to be nearly limitless, yet such is
the case. Over the first few years of the column, most questions came via telephone.
However, the world changes, and in recent years, the vast majority of questions come
by e-mail. Answers to all questions have been addressed to the inquirer, and those of
sufficient general interest have been addressed, sometimes in more depth, in the
Stainless Q&A column.
iii
In todays world, people tend to not retain paper copies of journals, so there have been
a number of requests to compile the Stainless Q&A columns in one place. It is hoped
that this book will provide a useful reference for those with interest in welding stain-
less steels.
Note: In converting the columns into book form, it proved appropriate to retain original
table and figure numbers as were used in the original version of the column. This is a
departure from normal book format where figures and tables are numbered sequen-
tially throughout a given book. It is hoped that this will not prove confusing to the
reader.
Damian J. Kotecki, Ph.D., FAWS
iv
Table of Contents
Section Page
Preface.............................................................................................................................. iii
About the Author...............................................................................................................v
Introduction .................................................................................................................... vii
List of Questions............................................................................................................ xiii
Basic Safety Precautions.............................................................................................. xvii
Chapter 1Welding of Austenitic Stainless Steels................................................1
Chapter 2Welding of Ferritic Stainless Steels ..................................................99
Chapter 3Welding of Martensitic Stainless Steels .........................................113
Chapter 4Welding of Duplex Stainless Steels..................................................129
Chapter 5Welding of Dissimilar Alloys .............................................................155
Chapter 6Odds and Ends......................................................................................233
Annex AReferences and Sources for Further Information ..........................257
xi
WELDING STAINLESS STEELQUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CHAPTER 1AUSTENITIC
Chapter 1
Welding of Austenitic Stainless Steels
1.1 Sticky Slag in SAW of 347?

Normally, when I use submerged arc welding for 304L stainless (with
? ER308L wire), the slag comes off clean. But when I switch to 347 stainless
with ER347 wire, there are little bits of slag stuck to the weld metal surface after
the bulk of the slag is removed. Why is that, and what can be done about it?
July 1999
This slag removal problem is almost certainly due to the presence of niobium (also
known as columbium) in the 347, in combination with your choice of flux. Niobium is
present in the alloy to stabilize it against chromium carbide precipitation, which can
damage corrosion resistance. Niobium also increases the strength of the alloy at high
temperatures. It is an integral part of 347 stainless. The niobium is reacting with the
flux, and the reaction products are causing the slag to stick. This is a common problem
with stabilized stainless steels such as 347 and 321 (321 is stabilized with titanium
instead of niobium). Many, but not all, SAW fluxes, whose slag removes cleanly from
most stainlesses, will leave residual slag on 347. Since there is no AWS or other classi-
fication system that addresses this problem, there is no generic answer to your prob-
lem. A change in flux is called for. I suggest that you contact the technical department
of one or more flux manufacturers for a recommendation concerning flux whose slag
removes cleanly from 347 stainless. You may have to pay more for a different flux to
overcome this problem.
1.2 Magnetism in ER308LSi Filler Metal?

I recently noticed that my ER308LSi wire sticks to a magnet. I thought
? 308L is an austenitic stainless and therefore nonmagnetic. Could some-
thing be wrong with the wire?
July 1999
In the annealed condition, 308L or 308LSi is fully austenitic and therefore nonmag-
netic. However, 308L and 308LSi are rather low-alloy austenitic stainless steels, and
1
CHAPTER 1AUSTENITIC WELDING STAINLESS STEELQUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
the cold working that occurs during drawing of the wire to final size can induce the
austenite to transform in part to martensite. Martensite is ferromagnetic, so it is
attracted to the magnet. When the wire is melted in the arc, the martensite disap-
pears. The resulting weld metal will consist mainly of austenite, with, usually, a small
amount of ferrite to prevent hot cracking. The ferrite is also ferromagnetic, so the
weld metal will likely be slightly attracted to a magnet, but not as strongly as the
wire.
If you want to check this, cut a 23 ft length of the wire, clamp one end to a steel plate
connected to your welding power source ground cable and slip the other end into the
welding gun contact tip with no other wire in the gun. Dont hold on to the wire. Pull
the gun trigger to let current flow through the wire, and let it heat up to a bright yel-
low color (but dont allow it to melt). The heating will cause the martensite to revert
back to austenite. Release the trigger and let the wire cool. Now you should find that
the wire does not stick to a magnet. The wire should also be much softer than it was
before you heated it. The wire has now been annealed. If the magnetic attraction has
gone, it is very unlikely that something is wrong with the wire.
On the other hand, if the magnetic attraction is still there after annealing, the prob-
lem could be with the wire compositionit might not be 308L or 308LSi. The wire
should be checked further.
Note also some higher alloyed stainless steel wires, such as 309L or 309LSi, can con-
tain some ferrite in the wire. This ferrite may not be removed by annealing, so the
wire can continue to be attracted to a magnet after annealing.
1.3 Why is 304L Limited to 0.03% C while E308L-16

is Limited to 0.04% C?
Type 304L or 316L base metal is limited to 0.03% carbon maximum. I
? understand that this limit is imposed to prevent sensitization during weld-
ing. But the corresponding weld filler metals in AWS A5.4, E308L-16 or E316L-
16, for example, are allowed to reach 0.04% carbon. Is the weld metal less
affected by sensitization, or is 0.04% carbon maximum only an acknowledgement
that the filler metals cant do better than that?
September 1999
Chromium and carbon combine in stainless steels to form a series of carbides. The car-
bide that causes the most trouble in stainless steels has approximately the formula
Cr23C6, although some of the chromium atoms are replaced by iron and molybdenum
if present. This is a dangerous carbide because one atom of carbon can tie up almost
four atoms of chromium, and because carbon atoms diffuse much more rapidly than do
chromium atoms. In stainless steel base metals, these carbides tend to form along
grain boundaries. The problem they cause is most severe when the metal reaches a
peak temperature in the range of 900 to 1600F (480 to 870C). Invariably, a portion of
the weld heat-affected zone (HAZ) reaches peak temperatures in this range. Carbon,
2
which is a very small atom compared to the matrix atoms of iron, chromium and
nickel, diffuses rapidly in this temperature range, so the entire grain is a source of
carbon for the carbides. But chromium, a large atom, diffuses slowly, so that only the
part of the grain very nearby the grain boundary is the source of the chromium for the
carbides. The result is a chromium-depleted zone adjacent to the grain boundary. This
zone is then preferentially corroded in an aggressive environment. When the corrosive
media dissolves the material adjacent to the grain boundaries, the grains themselves
fall out and corrosion advances. This phenomenon is called sensitization.
The corresponding weld metals (308L for 304L base metal or 316L for 316L base
metal) normally contain some ferrite. When heated by a subsequent weld pass into
the sensitization temperature range, they provide an alternative to grain boundaries
as chromium carbide precipitation sites. The alternative is in the ferrite itself. On a
microscopic scale, the ferrite is richer in chromium, by several percent, than the
matrix austenite. So carbides prefer to form in the ferrite rather than at grain bound-
aries. Since the ferrite is richer in chromium than the austenite, and since chromium
diffuses much faster in ferrite than in austenite, there is little or no problem with sen-
sitization of these ferrite-containing weld metals. Sensitization is then largely a prob-
lem only in the base metal HAZ, which contains no ferrite. It is, therefore, technically
correct to allow for more carbon in low-carbon weld metal than in low-carbon base
metal.
1.4 Can I Use ER308LSi for SAW?

Our shop has been using GMAW with ER308LSi and 99% argon-1% oxygen
? shielding on a seamer for joining 304L sheets up to 1/4 in. thick. We use
0.045 in. and, for the thicker material, 1/16 in. wire. Now we want to seam some
3/8-in. thick material. Its been suggested to use the lower silicon ER308L for
submerged arc welding (SAW) because the weld will have too much silicon in it if
the higher silicon wire is used, but, because of inventory control problems, I dont
want to have both ER308L and ER308LSi in the shop. Is there any harm in
using ER308LSi in SAW for this thicker material?
September 1999
There is a well-known association of high silicon content with hot cracking in austen-
itic stainless steel welds when there is no ferrite in the weld. But if you weld 304L
base metal with ER308LSi filler metal, using either GMAW or SAW, you can expect
ferrite in the weld metal. Therefore, there is no metallurgical problem with using
ER308LSi in SAW. However, a chemical analysis of such a weld showing more than
1% silicon might raise a few eyebrows if the weld ferrite content is not being checked.
You can keep those eyebrows in place by a judicious choice of flux for SAW.
There is no good classification system for SAW fluxes used with stainless steel weld
metals, so it is not possible to give a generic answer about flux choice. But in general
terms, SAW fluxes for stainless steel can be loosely fit into one of three categories.
There are fluxes high in silica content, which burn out a significant amount of chro-
mium from the weld metal and replace some of it with silicon. Such fluxes are metal-
3
lurgically described as acid fluxes. Second, there are fluxes that contain very little
silica. These burn out only a small amount of chromium and add very little silicon.
They are metallurgically described as basic fluxes. Third, there are fluxes that contain
metallic chromium as well as slag-forming materials. The metallic chromium alloys in
part with the weld metal so that the undiluted weld metal composition equals or, more
usually, exceeds the chromium content of the wire. Such fluxes are usually described
as chromium-compensating, but they are also usually somewhat acidic and cause sig-
nificant silicon pickup in the weld metal.
From the point of view of keeping eyebrows in place, you might want to select fluxes
that fit only the metallurgically basic description. The weld deposit with such a flux
and ER308LSi wire will not exceed 1% silicon content, and you wont have to explain
about more than 1% silicon not producing hot cracks when the weld contains some fer-
rite. Talk to a technical representative of your flux supplier to determine which fluxes
are metallurgically basic and suitable for stainless steel.
1.5 Hot Cracking in 320?

While trying to weld Type 320 stainless by GTAW using a matching filler
? metal (ER320), I am getting a lot of weld cracking. What can be done to
avoid this?
September 1999
Type 320 stainless steel is nominally 20% Cr, 34% Ni, 2% Mo, 3% Cu with some Nb
(Cb) for stabilization. Because of the high nickel content, it is not possible to obtain
any ferrite in this fully austenitic steel weld metal. I assume that your cracking is
mainly along the weld centerline, which is most common in such alloys.
There are two things you can do to improve the likelihood of crack-free welding. The
first is to change to ER320LR filler metal. The LR means low residuals, i.e.,
reduced levels of carbon, silicon, sulfur, phosphorus, and niobium. These five elements
are known to promote hot cracking, which occurs during solidification. Reducing these
elements reduces hot cracking tendencies.
The second thing you can do is weld ugly. Most welders like to make pretty beads
that wash out well and have little or no convexity. In fully austenitic steels like Type
320, this practice promotes hot cracking. Weld ugly means deliberately using too
much filler metal so a strongly convex bead results. The extra metal acts much like a
riser on a casting by supplying extra metal during weld shrinkage as solidification
progresses. In the same vein, make certain the crater is filled, or, better, is overfilled,
at each arc stoppage. While no one likes to grind welds, it is cheaper to grind off exces-
sive filler metal than it is to cut out cracked weld metal and weld again. Also, it is ben-
eficial to use low travel speed so the crater has an elliptical tail. If the travel speed is
higher, the crater tail and the weld ripples will form a series of sharp Vs along the
weld centerline, a shape that promotes hot cracking.
4
1.6 Ferrite Standards?

What are ferrite standards for stainless welds, and where do I get them?
?
October 1999
There are written standards and physical standards. The written standards tell how
to use the physical standards for calibration of instruments to measure ferrite in nom-
inally austenitic and duplex ferritic-austenitic stainless steel weld metals.
The written standards are AWS A4.2, available from the American Welding Society in
Miami, Fla., and ISO 8249, available from the ISO in Geneva, Switzerland, or from a
national standards body that is an ISO member, such as ANSI in the United States, BSI
in the United Kingdom or DIN in Germany. At the present time, the published AWS
A4.2 covers Ferrite Number (FN) measurements from zero to 100 FN, while the pub-
lished ISO 8249 only covers zero to 30 FN. ISO 8249 is currently being revised to expand
the range of calibration to 100 FN as well. This revision will probably be published in
2000. The two standards are technically equivalent, though the wording is different.
There are two types of physical standards, referenced in both written standards as
primary standards and secondary standards. A number of primary standards, or
a number of secondary standards, are required by the written standards for proper
calibration.
The primary standards consist of an iron substrate that is ferromagnetic, covered by

various thicknesses of nonmagnetic material. The nonmagnetic coating thickness of a
given primary standard is precisely controlled. A table in the written standard provides
a calibration between Ferrite Numbers and nonmagnetic coating thickness. The greater
the nonmagnetic coating thickness, the lower the FN. The table is specific to a particu-
lar instrument, the Magne-Gage1. Because the coating thickness standards do not have
the same microstructure as weld metal, different instrument probes respond differently
to a given nonmagnetic coating thickness; therefore, the calibration with primary stan-
dards cannot be extended to all instruments. There are also calibration tables in the
AWS A4.2 standard, but not in ISO 8249, for a limited number of other instruments.
To provide for calibration of numerous instruments in addition to a Magne-Gage, sec-
ondary standards were devised that have the same microstructure as weld metal. The
FN of a given secondary standard is first assigned as the average FN obtained by
Magne-Gages calibrated by primary standards. Then the secondary standards can be
used to calibrate any of a large number of suitable commercial instruments.
Both primary standards and secondary standards are available from the U.S.
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), in Gaithersburg, Md. The pri-
mary standards have many uses other than calibration of instruments for ferrite measure-
ments, so they are not offered by NIST according to Ferrite Number, but according to
1. Magne-Gage is a registered trademark of Magne-Gage Sales & Service Co., Inc.
5
coating thickness. At the present time, applicable sets of three or four primary stan-
dards are identified by NIST as SRM 1357, 1358a, 1359, 1360, 1361a, 1362b, 1363a,
and 1364a. To decide which sets you need, you should first examine the calibration
table in the written standard for thicknesses corresponding to the Ferrite Number
range of interest to you. The secondary standards (eight per set) specific to the range
of 0 to 30 FN are identified by NIST as SRM 8480, and those specific to the range of 30
to 100 FN are identified as SRM 8481. You can obtain pricing and other information
from the NIST Standard Reference Materials Web site at: http://ts.nist.gov/srm.
Prior to NIST involvement in providing secondary standards, secondary standards
were available from The Welding Institute (TWl) in the United Kingdom. At the time
of this writing, TWl had a very limited number of sets remaining, with no plans to
renew its supply.
1.7 Low FN in Vertical-Up in SMAW Welding?

Im using some E308L-16 electrodes with a certification that indicates
? about 8 FN in the weld metal. Im welding on 304L pipe, mostly in the 5G
position, and am required by contract to have 5 FN minimum in the welds. In the
parts of the welds around the 12 oclock position, Im doing okay, but in the parts
of the welds around 3 oclock or 9 oclock, I sometimes get less than 5 FN. Why?
And what can I do about it?
October 1999
It is a rather common experience with SMAW to find less ferrite in uphill, vertical-
position welding than in the flat position. This is usually due to nitrogen pickup from
the air outside the arc. In SMAW, some air always gets into the arc. In the uphill, ver-
tical position, a welder tends to hold a longer arc than in the flat position. When the
arc is longer, the shielding from the coating is stretched thinner, so more air gets into
the arc. Whipping the electrode from side to side aggravates this problem. The nitro-
gen molecules from the air are broken apart by the arc into single atoms, which easily
dissolve into the weld metal. Nitrogen is a very powerful alloying element in stainless
steel weld metal in terms of promoting austenite at the expense of ferrite. A drop in
ferrite from 8 to 4 FN would correspond to a nitrogen pickup of only 0.06%.
With the electrodes you have, the best solution is to concentrate on welding technique.
Keep as short an arc length as possible, especially in the uphill, vertical position.
Avoid inclining the electrode steeply upward when welding uphill in the near vertical
position as this tends to open the weld pool to more air. Instead, try keeping the elec-
trode nearly perpendicular to the surface of the joint so the electrode obstructs air
from getting into the arc. When weaving, travel slowly from side to side of the bead,
not rapidly. These techniques will minimize the nitrogen pickup, and you should be
able to stay above 5 FN.
In the future, you might want to consider using E308L-15 electrodes instead of
E308L-16 electrodes. The -15 coating type is usually more efficient in terms of exclud-
ing nitrogen from the weld pool, though most welders dont like the operating charac-
teristics of the -15 coating as well as the -16 coating.
6
1.8 Filler Metal for 6% Mo Stainless?

I have to weld a 6% molybdenum super austenitic stainless steel. Ive been
? told to use high molybdenum nickel-based alloy filler metal, which is very
expensive. Is this necessary?
November 1999
In a word, yes. The super austenitic stainlesses, such as UNS S31254 (nominally 20%
Cr, 18% Ni, 6% Mo, 1% Cu, 0.2% N) or UNS N08367 (nominally 21% Cr, 25% Ni, 6%
Mo, 0.2% N) are almost always chosen for pitting corrosion resistance. Molybdenum
and nitrogen together are mainly responsible for the pitting corrosion resistance.
Molybdenum segregates on a microscopic scale during solidification of weld metal, so
the dendrite cores (first bits of solid to form) are lower in Mo than the average compo-
sition. Without the benefit of an extensive solution anneal, such as the base metal gets
during processing, this segregation remains when the weld is cooled to ambient tem-
perature. Then, the dendrite cores become preferential pitting sites. The solution to
the problem is to over-alloy the weld metal with molybdenum so the dendrite cores
have at least as much Mo (6%) as the nominal composition of the base metal. This
requires something more than 8% Mo in the weld metal. Unfortunately, when more
than 8% Mo is present in an iron-based alloy, it becomes impractical to avoid forma-
tion of chi phase (an intermetallic compound of approximate composition Fe3CrMo)
during cooling. Chi phase formation severely embrittles the metal and damages corro-
sion resistance. Limitation of iron, as occurs when a nickel-based alloy filler metal is
used instead of a stainless steel, prevents chi phase from forming, so the high-Mo
filler metal has acceptable as-welded properties. As a result of all of these consider-
ations, the normal filler metals specified are the nickel-based alloy electrodes given in
AWS A5.11 as classes ENiCrMo-3 (nominally 21% Cr, 9% Mo, 3.5% Nb, 60% Ni) and
ENiCrMo-10 (nominally 21% Cr, 13% Mo, 4% Fe, 3% W, 55% Ni), or the corresponding
wire classes ERNiCrMo-3 or ERNiCrMo-10 specified in AWS A5.14. Yes, they are
expensive as compared to the super austenitic stainless steel base metal.
1.9 No Ferrite but Centerline Cracking in GMAW?

Im making outside corner welds on 304L stainless boxes using ER308LSi.
? Most of the welds are fine, but I occasionally get a centerline crack. Would
a change to ER308L help?
January 2000
I doubt it. A centerline crack in such a weld is almost invariably the result of no ferrite
in the weld. Both ER308LSi and ER308L are controlled ferrite products, typically
having a composition that calculates to about 8 to 12 Ferrite Number on the WRC-
1992 Diagram. The 304L base metal composition is likely to predict a little less ferrite,
typically 3 to 6 FN. So the diluted weld metal in your corner weld should contain
7
enough ferrite for freedom from hot cracking (the centerline cracking you occasionally
observe).
When a centerline crack occurs in these materials, loss of ferrite due to contamination
is most likely the cause. The usual suspect is nitrogen. Nitrogen is a very powerful
austenitizer. A nitrogen pickup on the order of 0.06%, as compared to the wire con-
tent, could be enough to suppress ferrite and lead to hot cracking. You could cut some
chips from a cracked weld and have them analyzed for nitrogen, then compare the
results with the wire manufacturers certified composition, or analyze the wire your-
self for this information, to be sure nitrogen is the culprit.
There are two likely possibilities for nitrogen contamination. One is plasma arc cut-
ting the joint edge without subsequently grinding to clean metal. Plasma arc cutting
of stainless is usually done with either nitrogen or air as the cutting gas, so nitrogen
contaminates the cut edge. If you are welding over the kerf without first grinding to
clean metal, the nitrogen in the kerf will contaminate the weld, which could be
responsible for your cracking.
The other likely cause of the problem is disturbance of the shielding gas. An outside
corner weld is more prone to this than most other joints, because the gas has to cover
270 deg of space, instead of only the usual 180 deg for a butt-weld or 90 deg for an
inside corner or fillet weld. Are there fans or other sources of air movement around
the welding area? If so, try putting up baffles or shields to protect the arc from the
draft. Or, if there is a local exhaust for fume control near the arc, try moving it a bit
farther away.
One other possibility is that you are using an inappropriate shielding gas. Gases with
high carbon dioxide content (for example, 75% argon-25% carbon dioxide) will produce
carbon pickup in GMA welding. Carbon is an austenitizer, just like nitrogen, and car-
bon pickup can also lead to loss of ferrite, with resulting centerline cracking. For GMA
welding of stainless, there should be no more than 5% carbon dioxide in the gas
shielding. (This is not true for flux cored arc welding [FCAW]the slag in FCAW lim-
its contact of the metal with the gas, so carbon pickup is not a problem with even
100% carbon dioxide shielding.)
1.10 HK-40 Repair Welding?

I am trying to weld HK40 pipe, but the joint keeps cracking beside the
? weld. What can I do?
January 2000
Essentially, HK40 is a high-carbon version of 310 stainless. The nominal composition

is 0.4% C, 25% Cr, 20% Ni. The usual welding filler metal is E310H-15, although some
nickel-based alloy filler metals have also been used. Normally, this alloy is used for
creep resistance at temperatures like 1600F (870C). In the solution-annealed condi-
tion, in which this pipe is normally supplied, the ductility of the material is compara-
ble to that of other austenitic stainless steels, and it is readily weldable. However, at
high service temperatures, chromium carbides precipitate throughout the microstruc-
8
ture. This causes the ductility at ambient temperatures, where repair welding might
take place, to approach zero. The base metal is then unable to accommodate any
shrinkage strains associated with welding. From your description of the cracking, I
assume your pipe has been in elevated temperature service and is now embrittled.
Harry Ebert wrote a paper titled Solution Annealing in the Field for the February
1974 Welding Journal. He showed an annealing procedure using electric heaters to
achieve a temperature of approximately 2150F (1175C). At this temperature, the
carbides dissolve. For a complete solution anneal, after the time at annealing temper-
ature, HK40 is water-quenched to prevent re-precipitation of carbides during cooling
and obtain maximum ductility. However, Ebert showed that removal of the heaters
and air cooling, while producing some carbide precipitation, resulted in enough ductil-
ity for successful repair welding of the embrittled pipe. Id suggest examining Eberts
paper to see if this method can be applied to your situation.
1.11 Filler Metal for 1/4 Hard 304L?

Im attempting to develop a welding procedure for 1/4 hard 304L sheet, but
? the transverse tensile strap always breaks in the weld. The fracture sur-
faces appears ductile, and there are no defects. Ive tried ER308LSi and
ER309LSi. What filler metal can I use to pass this test?
February 2000
The problem stems from a strength mismatch between the as-deposited weld metal
and the cold-worked base metal. The 1/4 hard 304L sheet, if bought to the ASTM A666
specification, is required to have tensile strength of at least 125 ksi (860 MPa) and
yield strength of at least 75 ksi (515 MPa). This is a considerable increase in strength,
induced by cold working, from the requirements of ASTM A240 for annealed 304L
sheet, which is 70 ksi (485 MPa) tensile strength and 25 ksi (1 70 MPa) yield strength.
In the as-welded condition, the weld metal doesnt get the benefit of cold working, so it
cant match the strength of the cold-worked base metal.
There are two possible approaches to solving the problem, and both are imperfect.
One is to cold work the weld area. Roll planishing has been used on welds in stainless
steel sheet metal to increase the strength of the weld area. This cold works the weld
by squashing the weld reinforcement, and it can produce considerable weld area
strengthening. Roll planishing works acceptably for butt-joint welds, but it is virtually
impossible to apply to fillet welds.
The other possible approach is to choose a compatible higher-strength filler metal.
AWS A5.9, which is the specification applicable to such GMAW wires as ER308LSi
and ER309LSi, doesnt address strength, so it is useful to look to the AWS A5.4 speci-
fication for covered electrodes for SMAW as a guide to what can be expected from
GMAW wires. From A5.4, one can see 308L and 309L are required to meet 75 ksi
(520 MPa), with no yield strength requirement. A martensitic filler metal, such as
410NiMo, which is required to provide at least 110 ksi (760 MPa) tensile strength, is
not appropriate for welding austenitic stainless steel. But the very high ferrite duplex
ferritic-austenitic stainless steel filler metals are quite compatible with austenitic
9
stainless steels. While not normally thought of in that sense, 312 is, in fact, a duplex
stainless steel, and it provides at least 95 ksi (660 MPa) tensile strength. Type 2209
provides at least 100 ksi (690 MPa) tensile strength, and 2553 provides at least 110
ksi (760 MPa) tensile strength. Of these, ER2553 is difficult to find, but ER312 and
ER2209 are reasonably available. Another possibility is the high nitrogen austenitic
compositions ER209 and ER240, whose SMAW counterparts are required to provide
at least 100 ksi tensile strength. Unfortunately, these are also hard to find. All of
these filler metals are stronger than ER308LSi or ER309LSi, but they still are likely
to undermatch the 1/4 hard 304L base metal.
Actual weld metal strength of these filler metals can be appreciably higher than the
specified minimum values. But there is also the matter of the heat-affected zone. Weld-
ing of the 1/4 hard 304L will produce some annealing in the HAZ, which will reduce
its strength. So you may find that the fracture in a transverse tensile test shifts from
the weld metal to the HAZ when you change to higher strength weld filler metal.
Unless you can cold work the weld deposit and HAZ, I dont think you can consistently
match the strength of the 1/4 hard 304L. You will then have to take some degree of
undermatch into account in your design.
1.12 High Silicon vs. Normal?

High silicon wires such as ER308LSi or ER309LSi wet better in GMA
? welding than their lower silicon equivalents such as ER308L or ER309L,
but is there a downside to using these wires in gas metal arc or gas tungsten arc
welding?
February 2000
The silicon limits specified in AWS A5.9 for all the high silicon wires, such as
ER308LSi or ER309LSi, are 0.65 to 1.00%. The silicon limits for the non-high silicon
wires, such as ER308L or ER309L, are 0.30 to 0.65%. All other chemical composition
limits are identical for the high silicon wires as compared to their non-high silicon
counterparts. For comparison, the silicon requirement for a covered electrode deposit
of, for example, E308L-1 6 is 0.90% maximum, which is expected to be raised to 1.00%
maximum when the AWS A5.4 specification is next revised. There is no minimum sili-
con content, nor is there a division in silicon contents, for covered electrode deposits.
You can expect more silicon with E308L-17 than with E308L-16 or E308L-15, but no
distinction is made by the specification. Correspondingly, for flux cored wires classi-
fied according to AWS A5.22, the silicon requirements are 1.0% maximum, with no
minimum, for E308LT0-1 and other classifications. Again, there is no distinction
made regarding silicon levels.
If you examine AWS A5.9 further, you will notice there is no high silicon version of the
fully austenitic alloys ER310, ER320 and ER330. Weld metals from these alloys can-
not contain any ferrite, so their weld metals are somewhat sensitive to hot cracking.
In this case, higher silicon would be detrimental because it increases the tendency for
hot cracking. But ER308L, ER308LSi, ER309L and ER309LSi filler metals are
designed to provide some ferrite in the weld metal. When there is a little ferrite in the
10
weld metal (only about 3 FN is necessary), there is no tendency to hot cracking, and
high silicon has no adverse effect.
So, unless you manage to eliminate the ferrite from the as-deposited weld metal, there
is no downside to using the high silicon wires as compared to the non-high silicon
wires.
1.13 Welding Free-Machining Stainless?

I am trying to make fillet welds of 303 stainless steel threaded fittings to
? 304 stainless heads and shells. Ive tried both SMAW and GTAW with
308L, 316L and 309L filler metals, but the welds frequently crack and leak.
Would 312 filler metal be a better choice?
March 2000
Types 304 and 303 are, at first glance, compositionally almost the same (nominally
18% Cr, 8% Ni). But the 303 stainless steel, as specified by ASTM A581 or A582, must
contain at least five times as much sulfur as the maximum amount of sulfur allowed
in ASTM A240 Type 304 (0.15% S minimum in 303 vs. 0.030% maximum in 304). This
sulfur exists in the steel in the form of sulfides. The sulfides break up chips during
machining operations. As a result, machining of 303 and other so-called free-machin-
ing stainless steels is much easier than machining of 304 stainless steel. So it is
attractive to make parts such as threaded fittings, intended for mechanical joints, of
303 or similar stainless steel.
But the sulfur that makes the 303 steel easy to machine also promotes hot cracking
during welding. Normally, filler metals such as 308L, 316L or 309L contain enough
ferrite that their welds are free of hot cracking tendencies. But a normal ferrite-
containing weld cannot handle as much sulfur as is present in 303 stainless. Such
steels are normally considered to be unweldable due to their hot cracking tendency.
Brooks and Lambert (Welding Journal 57(5): 139-s to 143-s) developed a relationship
between the total of phosphorus and sulfur in the weld metal and the required mini-
mum amount of ferrite necessary to prevent hot cracking. Their work showed that,
when the total of P+S exceeded about 0.05%, 13 to 14 FN was necessary to prevent hot
cracking in their austenitic stainless steel welds. The sulfur alone in 303 considerably
exceeds the P+S limit of Brooks and Lambert.
Type 312 filler metal (nominally 29% Cr and 9% Ni), undiluted, is very high in ferrite,
typically on the order of 70 FN. So 312 filler metal can provide some improvement in
hot cracking resistance as compared to the filler metals you have already tried. How-
ever, the filler metal choice cannot affect the sulfide stringers in the hottest part of the
heat-affected zone (HAZ). These stringers produce liquid films that wet grain bound-
aries at welding temperatures and cannot resist shrinkage stresses during cooling. So
you are likely to then find HAZ cracks in place of weld metal cracks. A much better
solution is to replace the 303 fittings with 304L fittings. You may pay more for
machining the 304L fittings than you would the 303 fittings, but you will be able to
use 308L filler metal without fear of hot cracking. The reduction in repairs or scrap
should more than offset the increased cost of 304L fittings.
11
A change to another grade of free-machining stainless steel, such as 303Se, is unlikely

to improve your cracking situation. Whatever inclusions are deliberately added into
the steel, to make it free-machining, also make the steel sensitive to hot cracking.
1.14 Best Electrode to Use for Long-Term

Exposure?
What would be the best austenitic stainless steel electrode to use for long-
? time exposure in the temperature range of 1400 to 1600F?
March 2000
This is a very complicated question because the answer depends strongly upon the
base metal(s) to be joined, the service environment and the design mechanical prop-
erty requirements. The common austenitic stainless steel base metals, such as 304,
316, 16-8-2, or 347, have barely adequate oxidation (scaling) resistance to survive in
air at 1600F (870C) for extended periods. But if the base metal oxidation resistance
is adequate, then matching filler metals (308, 316, 16-8-2, 347) would be appropriate.
Normally, higher carbon versions of both the base metal and filler metal would be cho-
sen for higher strength (304H, 316H, 16-8-2H, or 347H base metal and 308H, 316H,
16-8-2, or 347 filler metal).
On the other hand, if the environment contains sulfur (SO2 or H2S), then these stain-
less steels would have inadequate resistance to scaling at these temperatures. A
higher chromium stainless steel such as 309 (nominally 23% Cr, 13% Ni) or 310 (25%
Cr, 20% Ni) would likely be chosen. Again, a matching filler metal would normally be
selected.
If a matching filler metal were chosen, it would be appropriate to specify a limit on

weld metal ferrite content, because, in this temperature range, transformation of fer-
rite to sigma phase is quite rapid, and these filler metals, except for 310, are normally
designed to contain some ferrite in their as-deposited condition. Sigma phase in large
amounts can severely embrittle the steel. An upper limit of 10 FN in the as-deposited
weld metal is often specified, although limits of 12 and 15 FN have also been used. A
ferrite limitation on 310 stainless steel filler metal is unnecessary because the weld
metal is fully austenitic.
A major concern about the austenitic stainless steels mentioned above is their very
low resistance to creep above about 1300F (700C). Creep is plastic deformation
under prolonged loading at stresses well below the yield strength measured in a short
time tensile test. The ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section II, Part D, pro-
vides design- allowable stresses for such steels on the order of 2100 lb/in.2 (14 MPa) or
less, depending upon ASTM specification and product form of the steel, at 1400F
(760C), 1300 lb/in.2 (9 MPa) at 1500F (815C), and nothing above that temperature.
The Code considers 1500F to be the maximum service temperature for all of these
12
austenitic stainless steels, even 310. The Code appears to prefer nickel-based alloys
over austenitic stainless steels in the 1400 to 1600F temperature range.
If your weldment is not covered by the ASME Code, and if these property limitations
are acceptable in your design, then the best filler metal for service in the tempera-
ture range of 1400 to 1600F would normally be the filler metal that most closely
matches the base metal, with a ferrite limitation of 10 FN maximum. Further, this
limit should be applied to actual measured ferrite content, determined on all-weld
metal with an instrument calibrated according to AWS A4.2. The WRC-1992 Diagram
should be used only for specifying ferrite in the form of bare solid wire or consumable
inserts. It is not safe to assume that off-the-shelf electrodes or consumable inserts will
meet this limit. Since the AWS filler metal specifications do not specify ferrite require-
ments, this requirement should be specified in your purchase order, as provided for in
AWS A5.01, Filler Metal Procurement Guidelines.
If you can make your question more specific, I should be able to make my answer more
specific.
1.15 How to PWHT 304L Weldments for

Dimensional Stability?
After making a large and rather complicated weldment of 304L stainless
? steel, the weldment has to be machined to very tight tolerances. Is it advis-
able to stress relieve after welding to improve dimensional stability during
machining, and, if so, at what temperature?
April 2000
Postweld heat treatment (PWHT) is commonly applied to large, complex weldments of

carbon steel or low-alloy steel to improve dimensional stability during machining. A
large, complex weldment can be expected to contain yield point residual stresses
somewhere within it. Machining away some metal containing residual stresses causes
redistribution of stresses, which often results in the metal moving slightly during
machining. A PWHT before machining produces stress relaxation by creep and local
yielding because the yield strength of the metal falls with increasing temperature. So,
after a properly controlled PWHT, the maximum residual stress should be on the
order of the yield strength of the metal at the PWHT temperature, which is a fraction
of the room-temperature yield strength. The result is a greatly reduced tendency for
the metal to move during welding, and dimensional stability is improved. In principle,
PWHT can do the same for austenitic stainless steel weldments.
With carbon steel or low-alloy steel, PWHT is commonly applied at temperatures such
as 1150F (620C). However, this temperature is dangerous for 304L austenitic stain-
less steel and similar weldments for two reasons. First, the weld metal, which is
13
normally 308L, typically contains some ferrite for resistance to hot cracking. At tem-
peratures around 1150F, the ferrite transforms to sigma phase, a brittle intermetallic
compound, which embrittles the weld metal. Second, at the same temperature, the
304L base metal experiences chromium carbide precipitation on the grain boundaries,
which depletes the chromium in solution in the metal immediately adjacent to the
grain boundaries. This makes the metal sensitive to intergranular corrosion. Type
304L stainless is quite immune to sensitization during the very short thermal cycles
of welding, but it is not immune to sensitization during the much longer thermal cycle
of PWHT at 1150F.
If the weldment is not yet made, you can improve the situation relative to sigma
phase by using relatively low ferrite filler metal. Normal 308L weld metal often con-
tains more than 10 FN. But 308L filler metals of 4 to 9 FN are available, and use of
these can reduce the damage from sigma phase to acceptable levels. If the weldment is
already made, of course, there is nothing you can do about the ferrite level.
A safer approach is to reduce the PWHT temperature, Id suggest PWHT at 800 to

900F (425 to 480C) for 2 to 4 h. With this PWHT, 304L base metal welded with 308L
filler metal should not form any sigma phase, and the extent of chromium carbide pre-
cipitation should be minimal. In this temperature range, the yield strength of the
304L base metal and matching 308L filler metal should be about one half of what it is
at room temperature, so considerable stress relaxation can occur. There will not be as
much stress relief as at 1150F, but there should be a big improvement in dimensional
stability.
1.16 Can I Break the Coating off a 347 Electrode

and Use the Core Wire for GTA?
I am required to make some girth welds in 347 stainless pipe. I plan to put
? in a GTA root pass, then finish with SMAW. I only need a few pounds of
347 rod for the GTA root. Is it acceptable to break the coating off of a few of my
347 coated electrodes and use the core wire for the filler metal?
July 2000
Type 347 filler metal is almost identical in composition to 308 filler metal. The differ-
ence is mainly the 347 contains about 1/2% niobium (Nb, a.k.a. columbium or Cb). So
many producers of 347 covered electrodes use 308 or 308L core wire and add the nec-
essary niobium through the coating. Then if you break off the coating, you lose the Nb.
The niobium is important for high-temperature strength and low-temperature corro-
sion resistance of the weld metal. So you could end up with an unsatisfactory root pass
composition. I suggest you discuss this with a responsible person in the R&D depart-
ment of the manufacturer of the covered electrodes you are thinking of decoating for
GTAW use.
14
1.17 Can I Purge with Nitrogen Instead of Argon?

Our shop welding procedure specifications for GTA welding of austenitic
? stainless steel pipe, such as 304L or 316L, always call for argon purge of
the root. Argon is more expensive than nitrogen, which, I am told, has also been
used for root side purging. But I have been told by others nitrogen is risky for
purging because it sometimes causes welds to crack. Is nitrogen an acceptable
purging gas for stainless?
July 2000
In a word, yes. But nitrogen requires a little more caution than argon. Nitrogen is nor-
mally a diatomic molecule (two atoms per molecule), and in that form is nearly insolu-
ble in molten stainless steel. Nitrogen, when confined to the root side of the joint,
causes no trouble then, because the two atoms stick together.
A potential for trouble arises if the nitrogen passes through the root into the arc. The
arc energy is enough to separate the diatomic nitrogen into monatomic nitrogen ions,
which are highly soluble in molten stainless steel. Then nitrogen becomes an alloying
element. As an alloying element, nitrogen acts to reduce ferrite in the weld metal. If
the ferrite content drops too low (typically less than about 3 FN), the weld may solid-
ify as primary austenite and be sensitive to hot cracking.
Not all stainless weld metals are intended to contain ferrite. Nitrogen pickup makes
little difference in welding fully austenitic stainless steels such as 310 or 320. Such
fully austenitic stainless steels require more care in any event to avoid hot cracking
during welding. Nitrogen pickup with duplex stainless steels, such as 2209, is actually
beneficial because those steels have very high ferrite content, which cannot be
reduced to near zero by nitrogen, and nitrogen improves their corrosion resistance.
But nitrogen pickup does make a significant difference with the more common austen-
itic stainless steels such as 304L and 316L, whose weld metals are normally designed
to contain a small amount of ferrite. Nitrogen pickup can cause the solidification mode
to change from the normal primary ferrite mode to primary austenite mode. Then
they become sensitive to hot cracking.
Obviously, welding with a root opening makes it easier for nitrogen from the root to
get into the arc. Therefore, a tight root is safer than an open root. Another thing to
beware of is use of excessive nitrogen flow to speed up purging. High flow rate, with
restricted venting of the purge gas, can force the nitrogen out through the weld root
into the arc, even if the root is nominally tight. Fitup is almost never perfect, and a
root that is tight in some areas is likely to be not so tight in other areas. A useful prac-
tice, after the required root gas purity is obtained, is to reduce the purge gas flow rate
to just produce a mild, soft flow out the intended vent opening when welding is to
begin.
With proper care and a tight root, including good fitup, nitrogen purge is acceptable
for austenitic stainless steels, such as 304L and 316L, whose weld metals are nor-
mally designed to contain some ferrite. I would advise against the use of nitrogen for
open root GTA welding of these steels.
15
1.18 Can I Weld Safely on Cold Stainless?

I need to cut into a 304L stainless pipe that is part of a large system
? containing water. I then want to GTA weld a T fitting with a shut-off valve
already welded to it in place of the segment I cut out for the branching line. To do
this without draining the system, I plan to wrap copper tubing around the pipe
on either side of the zone where I need to cut and weld, insulate around that
and run liquid nitrogen through the copper tubing to freeze the water on either
side of the area where I need to cut. This will plug the pipe so the water doesnt
run out, except for the liquid between the two frozen plugs. Ive used this freeze-
plug technique in the past, putting in a threaded fitting and a coupling. But I
dislike having to thread the stainless pipe and add the coupling. Also, there is
evidence of crevice corrosion at the threaded connections. No doubt, there will be
some chilling of the pipe at the cut ends. Is there any harm in welding while the
pipe is chilled, or must I preheat the area where I want to weld back to room
temperature?
July 2000
First of all, 304L stainless is remarkably tough and ductile, even at the temperature
of liquid nitrogen, which is 320F (196C) at normal atmospheric pressure near sea
level. This probably accounts for the fact the pipe didnt burst when you froze it. It
also accounts for why you dont have to worry about brittle fracture when welding.
There is also no concern about hydrogen-induced cold cracking in austenitic stainless
steels like 304L. So welding on cold 304L, by itself, isnt a problem. But there is a con-
cern with water, either from some melting of the ice plugs or from condensation from
the air on the cold pipe, reaching the joint area. Water getting into the arc or weld pool
is likely to produce porosity in the weld. If you freeze-plug the water line about a foot
(30 cm) from where you cut and maintain the liquid nitrogen flow until you are done
welding, you should be able to keep the freeze-plug from partially melting and letting
water run toward the welding area. Fortunately, 304L stainless steel is a rather poor
heat conductor.
Once the segment to be replaced with the T is cut out, clean and dry the inside of the
pipe for several inches back from the intended joints. Then, preheat the cut pipe for
3 in. (75 mm) back from the intended joint to a temperature slightly above the dew
point of the ambient air. This will inhibit condensation in the joint area. The dew
point depends on the relative humidity and temperature of the airif you are in
Arizona, the dew point could easily be well below freezing, but if you are in Houston,
the dew point could be 60F (16C) or higher.
Before beginning welding, gas purge the inside of the pipe between the freeze plugs.
The fact that you have seen crevice corrosion at the mechanical connections indicates
you need a completely penetrated and oxidation-free weld root. Before physically put-
ting the T into the space between the cut ends of the pipe, place two flexible metal gas
purge lines into the T through the valve so one line will place gas near one of the
freeze plugs and the other line will place it near the other. Thin-wall copper tubing
with a 1/4-in. (6-mm) inside diameter should be flexible enough to be pulled out
through the valve after you are done. So the opening for purge gas and air to exit is
16
about the same as the cross-sectional area of the two purge lines, add wads of fiber-
glass or some other noncombustible compressible material into the valve seat to
obstruct most of the valve opening. Then partially close the valve to hold the flexible
lines and the compressible material in place, but not so tightly that one or both gas
lines is pinched closed. Put tape over both joints to keep air out. Plan the application
of this tape so that, when peeled back to begin welding, you will begin on the bottom
part of the pipe. Run the purge gas (argon is safer than nitrogen, but either can be
usedsee the next question) through both lines at about 10 to 20 ft3/h (5 to 10 L/min)
per line, until the gas coming out the opening in the valve reaches 10 ppm oxygen or
less. You will need an oxygen detector to determine the oxygen level is that lowsee-
ing that the exit gas will snuff out a match is not nearly good enough.
When the exiting purge gas is sufficiently low in oxygen, start peeling back the tape
over one joint so the bottom half of the girth can be welded first. That way, if the weld-
ing does manage to cause some ice to melt, the resulting water inside the pipe will
only reach an already completed weld. Weld the second joint with this same sequence.
You should be able to successfully weld the T into the line following this procedure.
And the resulting welds, properly purged, will have much less sensitivity to crevice
corrosion than your former mechanical connections. I hope my readers will find your
freeze plug approach as interesting as I did.
1.19 What is the Right Covered Electrode Filler

Metal for 321 Stainless?
We have been making stainless steel components from 304 or 304H stain-
? less using E308H-16 covered electrodes. The customer now wants to
replace some of the 304 or 304H base metal with 321 stainless. This means we
must make 304 or 304H to 304 or 304H joints, 321 to 321 joints and 304 or 304H
to 321 joints. Is there one covered electrode that can be used for all of these
joints?
October 2000
Type 321 stainless is essentially Type 304 or 304H with an addition of titanium. The
titanium was originally added to the basic 304 composition with the intention of pref-
erentially combining with carbon to produce titanium carbides instead of chromium
carbides, thereby virtually eliminating grain boundary corrosive attack in the weld
heat-affected zone (HAZ) in aqueous service. In this respect, Type 321 is conceptually
very similar to Type 347 stainless, which uses niobium instead of titanium for this
purpose. Table 1 compares the compositions of 304, 304H, 321 and 347, as given in
ASTM A240.
Today, Types 321 and 347 stainless are not so much used for aqueous corrosion resis-
tance as they are used for high-temperature service. The titanium or niobium carbides
17
Table 1Comparisons of 304, 304H, 321, and 347

Compositions as Given in ASTM A240
%C % Mn %P %S % Si % Cr % Ni % Mo Other, %
304 0.08 2.0 0 0.045 0.030 0.75 18.0 to 8.0 to

max. max. max. max. max. 20.0 10.5
304H 0.04 to 2.00 0.045 0.030 0.75 18.0 to 8.0 to

0.10 max. max. max. max. 20.0 10.5
321 0.08 2.00 0.045 0.030 0.75 17.0 to 9.0 to Ti = 5

max. max. max. max. max. 19.0 12.0 (C + N)
to 0.70
347 0.08 2.00 0.045 0.030 0.75 17.0 to 9.0 to Nb =

max. max. max. max. max. 19.0 13.0 10C
to 1.00
ER321 0.08 1.0 to 0.03 0.03 0.30 to 18.5 to 9.0 to 0.75 Ti = 9C

max. 2.5 max. max. 0.65 20.5 10.5 max. to 1.0
E347-XX 0.08 0.5 to 0.04 0.03 0.90 18.0 to 9.0 to 0.75 Nb = 8C

max. 2.5 max. max. max. 21.0 11.0 max. to 1.00
that prevent chromium-carbide precipitation also provide improved resistance to

creep at elevated temperature. The two steels are largely interchangeable.
Matching ER321 stainless filler metal (classified in AWS A5.9) is available for GMAW
and GTAW. However, matching filler metal is not available as covered electrodes
because the titanium does not transfer well across the arc of a flux shielded process
such as SMAW. But 347 filler metal, as covered electrodes, works quite well and is rec-
ommended for 321 base metal. It is also quite acceptable for 304 or 304H joining and
for joining these base metals to 321 stainless. Therefore, I suggest you use 347 covered
electrodes for all of the joints you described.
1.20 What is the Difference Between Percent

Ferrite and Ferrite Number?
I understand a little ferrite in a nominally austenitic stainless steel weld is
? helpful in preventing hot cracking. But why are there two measures
percent ferrite and Ferrite Number? What is the difference? Does it matter
which I specify?
December 2000
18
You are quite correct, a little ferrite in a nominally austenitic stainless steel weld
metal, such as 308L or 316L, is very helpful in preventing hot cracking. So, of course,
the various organizations involved in provision of a welding filler metal have a vested
interest in how the ferrite requirements for a filler metal are specified. This has an
important bearing on whether or not a given lot of filler metal is accepted for use.
By the time of World War II, the desirability of ferrite in nominally austenitic stain-
less steel welds as a means of preventing hot cracking was recognized. The ferrite was
originally detected by metallographic examination. The weld metal examined had to
be cut into a specimen suitable for polishing, etched carefully to differentiate between
ferrite and austenite and then some means of determining the volume fraction of fer-
rite had to be applied. Usually, this involved point counting, in which a grid of orthog-
onal intersecting lines would be overlaid on a photograph of the microstructure. Then,
the percent ferrite would be obtained as the number of grid intersection points falling
on ferrite as a percentage of the total number of grid intersection points. The method
of point counting to estimate volume percent of a given phase is defined in the ASTM
E562 standard. Manual point counting is laborious, but the job can be automated by
using an image analyzing microscope, following the method of ASTM E1245. A major
drawback to point counting is that it is a destructive testthe weld metal actually
sampled usually cant be the weldment put into service. A second major drawback is
that point counting results are very sensitive to the quality of the etching of the sam-
ple and to interpretation of points falling on boundaries between phases.
In 1949, Anton Tony Schaeffler published the well-known Schaeffler Diagram that
linked chemical composition to percent ferrite determined by metallographic methods
(Metal Progress, 56(11): 680680B). While the Schaeffler Diagram was originally con-
ceived as a predicting tool to provide guidance in filler metal design and selection, peo-
ple started to apply it for specification, e.g., the filler metal shall provide 5 to 10%
ferrite when its composition is plotted on the Schaeffler Diagram. While simple in con-
cept, this led to numerous problems. A major problem is there are usually several
organizations concerned with the safety of a weldment that goes into, for example, a
power plant. No one organization entirely trusts the other, so chemical analysis might
be provided by the filler metal manufacturer, checked by the fabricator and rechecked
by the master contractor. Not surprisingly, when three organizations independently
perform chemical analysis on anything, they dont all arrive at the same conclusion.
Therefore, they dont get the same predicted percent ferrite. Also, the correlation
between chemical composition and percent ferrite is imperfectsignificant elements
such as nitrogen were not part of the Schaeffler Diagram, and there are inaccuracies
in any such diagram. For example, the Schaeffler Diagram is clearly incorrect in its
treatment of manganese in the Nickel Equivalent.
Determination of ferrite by metallographic means turned out to be equally non repro-

ducible. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, round robins of ferrite determination by
metallographic means were run in the Welding Research Council, Subcommittee on
Welding Stainless Steel, and in the International Institute of Welding, Commission II.
These round robins showed, for example, that several laboratories might measure
anywhere from 3 to 8% ferrite on a single sample of weld metal. So it was difficult for
several organizations to agree that a specification like 5 to 10% ferrite was actually
met. When they didnt agree, delays in construction resulted while the disagreeing
parties attempted to resolve their differences.
19
Besides etching appearance, ferrite has another property that allows it to be differen-
tiated from austeniteferrite is ferro-magnetic, while austenite is not. To a first
approximation, the magnetic properties of a ferrite/austenite mixture of weld metal
are proportional to the ferrite content. (There is also a compositional effectin gen-
eral, ferrite higher in alloy content has a somewhat weaker magnetic response than
lower alloy ferrite, but this effect is not important in interpreting the measurements.)
A magnetic scale for ferrite determination was developed by the Welding Research
Council, and was published as the AWS A4.2 standard in 1974. The A4.2 standard has
been updated several times since 1974, and the latest edition was published in 1997.
The magnetic method has become an international standard, ISO 8249, which was
first published in 1985, and was updated in 2000. While the words in AWS A4.2 are
not identical to the words in ISO 8249, the standards are technically identical, as are
the test results obtained by following the two standards. The magnetic scale describes
its measurements in terms of Ferrite Numbers (FN), which were originally believed to
numerically approximate percent ferrite. However, it is quite clear today that, at least
at higher Ferrite Numbers, the FN overstates the volume percent ferrite. From the
point of view of whether or not a specification requirement is met, the exact amount
by which the FN overstates the percent ferrite is unimportant. Of primary importance
is that the various parties in the supply and consumption chain for weld metal can
reproduce the ferrite measurement results, so there is no disagreement about whether
or not the specification was met. And, of course, links must be established between
the specified ferrite range and acceptable weld properties. After more than 25 years
of experience with Ferrite Numbers, the links between FN and properties are well
established.
Round robin studies of FN determination by the Welding Research Council, and by

the International Institute of Welding, for samples in the 5 to 10 FN range, demon-
strated the reproducibility among a number of measuring laboratories is better than
1 FN. So, the reproducibility of FN measurements is considerably better than
that of percent ferrite determinations. In addition, FN measurement is nondestruc-
tive. That is, the actual weldment can be evaluated, not only a prefabrication weld
sample.
Predicting diagrams for welds, relating Ferrite Number to chemical composition, have
been developed experimentally. The DeLong Diagram (Welding Journal 52(7): 281-s to
297-s) of 1973 was updated by the Welding Research Council in 1988 (Welding Jour-
nal 67(12): 289-s to 298-s), and again in 1992 (Welding Journal 71(5): 171-s to 178-s).
Today, the WRC-1992 Diagram is the official method of the ASME Code, for predicting
FN when FN cannot be measured. But FN measurement is preferred to prediction
from a Diagram.
So, to summarize, Ferrite Number measurement is more reproducible than ferrite

percent measurement. Ferrite Number is more conveniently measured than ferrite
percent. And, because the Ferrite Number measurement is a non-destructive test, it is
suitable for in-process quality assurance, while ferrite percent is generally not. Speci-
fication of a Ferrite Number minimum, or of a FN range when necessary, is far prefer-
able to specifying a percent ferrite minimum or range. For most weldments in
nominally austenitic stainless steels, where the main concern is freedom from hot
cracking sensitivity, specification of 3 FN minimum is all that is necessary. For 347
weld metal, and for some higher alloyed weld metals such as 317L and 309LMo, 5 FN
20
minimum provides assurance of freedom from sensitivity to hot cracking. Where ele-
vated temperature service and/or postweld heat treatment are to be applied, an upper
limit of 10 or 15 FN is often appropriate to avoid embrittlement due to phase transfor-
mations at high temperature. And for duplex ferritic-austenitic stainless steel weld
metals such as 2209, a specification range of 30 to 70 FN has been found to correlate
well with good corrosion resistance and good mechanical properties.
The Welding Research Council, the International Institute of Welding and the ASME
Code strongly recommend specification of ferrite in stainless steel weld metals by
Ferrite Number, not by percent ferrite.
1.21 Corrosion Resistance of 304L to 316L Joints

with 308L vs. 316L?
I have to make a number of joints of 304L pipe to 316L pipe. From the
? standpoint of corrosion resistance, does it make any difference if 308L
filler metal or 316L filler metal is used?
January 2001
To begin, lets look at some compositions. Since you indicate the base metals are pipes,
and the service is corrosion, Ill look to ASTM A312, Standard Specification for Seam-
less and Welded Austenitic Stainless Steel Pipes. I should note that different ASTM
stainless steel base metal specifications sometimes have different composition limits
for nominally the same grade of steel. For filler metal compositions, Ill look to AWS
A5.4 for covered electrodes; AWS A5.9 for bare wires for gas metal arc, gas tungsten
arc and submerged arc welding; and AWS A5.22 for gas shielded flux cored wires. The
compositions are listed in Tables 1 and 2 for both base metals and filler metals.
The elements responsible for corrosion resistance are chromium, nickel and molyb-
denum. Looking at either table, it can be noticed that the minimum chromium and the
minimum nickel for the filler metals tend to be higher than the corresponding mini-
mum of the base metals. This provides some assurance the weld metal will at least
match the corrosion resistance of the corresponding base metal.
In general, since 316L contains more alloy, it has slightly better corrosion resistance
than 304L in most applications. But the corrosion resistance of a joint between the
two base metals can be no better than the corrosion resistance of the less resistant
base metal. If the filler metal corrosion resistance at least matches the corrosion resis-
tance of the less resistant base metal, then the weld metal corrosion resistance should
be adequate for the intended service, as long as both base metals are adequate.
So, the conclusion is, in virtually all joints between 304L and 316L stainless steels for
corrosion resistant service, it does not matter if the filler metal chosen is 308L or
316L, except 308L is generally less costly.
21
Table 1304L Base Metal vs. 308L Filler Metals
C, % Mn, % P, % S, % Si, % Cr, % Ni, % Mo, %
A 312 0.035 2.00 0.040 0.030 0.75 18.0 to 8.00 to Not

TP304L max. max. max. max. max. 20.0 13.0 Specified
A5.4 308L 0.04 0.5 to 0.04 0.03 0.90 18.0 to 9.0 to 0.75
max. 2.5 max. max. max. 21.0 11.0 max.
A5.9 308L 0.03 1.0 to 0.03 0.03 0.30 to 19.5 to 9.0 to 0.75
max. 2.5 max. max. 0.65 22.0 11.0 max.
A5.22 308L 0.04 0.5 to 0.04 0.03 1.0 18.0 to 9.0 to 0.5
Table 2316L Base Metal and Filler Metal
C, % Mn, % P, % S, % Si, % Cr, % Ni, % Mo, %
A 312 0.035 2.00 0.040 0.030 0.75 16.0 to 10.0 to 2.0 to

TP316L max. max. max. max. max. 18.0 15.0 3.0
A5.4 316L 0.04 0.5 to 0.04 0.03 0.90 17.0 to 11.0 to 2.0 to
max. 2.5 max. max. max. 20.0 14.0 3.0
A5.9 316L 0.03 1.0 to 0.03 0.03 0.30 to 18.0 to 11.0 to 2.0 to
max. 2.5 max. max. 0.65 20.0 14.0 3.0
A5.22 316L 0.04 0.5 to 0.04 0.03 1.0 17.0 to 11.0 to 2.0 to
max. 2.5 max. max. max. 20.0 14.0 3.0
1.22 Ferrite Limits for 4K Fracture Toughness?

I am trying to qualify welding procedures for 304L and 316L equipment for
? cryogenic service in liquid nitrogen or liquid hydrogen. The December 2000
Stainless Q&A column proposed 3 FN minimum for 308L and 316L weld metals
for freedom from hot cracking. But when I test welding procedures using covered
electrodes or submerged arc with 5 to 10 FN, I fail toughness requirements of 15-
mils lateral expansion at 320F (196C, or 77 K). I have no trouble with the
base metal tests. How can I meet this toughness requirement in the welds with-
out hot cracking?
February 2001
Austenitic stainless steels, including their weld metals, do not undergo the rather
abrupt transition from ductile fracture to brittle fracture with falling temperature
that is experienced by common mild steel and low-alloy steels. Rather, they experience
22
a gradual decline in toughness, measured as either absorbed energy or lateral expan-

sion in the Charpy V-notch impact test, with falling temperature. At cryogenic tem-
peratures, the fracture mode in austenite is still normally ductile tearing, not brittle
cleavage. However, the ferrite in a nominally austenitic stainless steel weld metal can
experience cleavage fracture, so it is often essential to limit the amount of ferrite to
increase the fracture energy at cryogenic temperatures.
Also, keep in mind that the Charpy V-notch impact test becomes invalid at tempera-
tures much below 320F. It is valid for liquid nitrogen testing but not for liquid
hydrogen testing since liquid hydrogen temperature at atmospheric pressure is about
423F (253C, or 20 K). Colder still is liquid helium, at 452F (269C, or 4 K). The
problem with Charpy impact testing at these very low temperatures is that the ther-
mal capacitance of the metal approaches zero, so as plastic deformation begins in the
root of the notch during the impact test, adiabatic heating occurs, which raises the
temperature of the metal. The only valid tests at these very low temperatures are
slow strain rate fracture toughness tests, where liquid hydrogen or liquid helium can
extract heat fast enough to overcome adiabatic heating. But fracture toughness tests
are highly specialized and expensive, so the average, or even above average, fabrica-
tion shop cant afford them. The ASME Code Committee, after examining correlations
between fracture toughness tests at liquid helium temperature and Charpy V-notch
results at liquid nitrogen temperature, proposes to require 21-mils (0.53-mm) lateral
expansion, not 15-mils (0.38-mm) lateral expansion, at liquid nitrogen temperature to
qualify a welding procedure for service at liquid helium temperature. As a result, your
problem could become even more difficult in the future than it is now.
Coming back to the topic of toughness of nominally austenitic stainless steel weld
metals, there have been a number of studies on cryogenic toughness. One of the best
known is that of Szumachowski and Reid (Welding Journal, November 1978 and
February 1979). This work showed ferrite and nitrogen are detrimental to Charpy V-
notch impact toughness at liquid nitrogen temperature. It also showed the lime-
fluoride slag system (e.g., AWS A5.4 E316L-15 electrodes) produced better toughness
at a given ferrite and nitrogen level than did a rutile slag system (e.g., AWS A5.4
E316L-16 electrodes). The difference between a -15 coating and a -16 coating is due to
the oxygen (inclusion) content of the weld metal. The -15 coating produces lower oxy-
gen (about 400 ppm) vs. the -16 coating (about 600 ppm) or -17 coating (about
900 ppm). Therefore, to improve your chances of meeting cryogenic impact requirements,
choose low-ferrite, low-nitrogen filler metal with a lime-fluoride (-15) coating. Or, in
submerged arc welding, choose a high-basicity flux with a low-ferrite, low-nitrogen
filler metal.
But you can do better. The effect of oxygen continues below 400 ppm. A slag-free-inert-
gas-shielded process (GTAW or GMAW) can produce on the order of 150 ppm or less of
oxygen in the weld metal. Ive routinely found low-nitrogen (0.04% or 400 ppm) AWS
A5.9 ER308LSi and ER316LSi wires with about 10 FN, welded GMAW, spray trans-
fer, with 98% argon-2% oxygen shielding gas, that produce Charpy V-notch toughness
of about 30-mils (0.76-mm) lateral expansion at liquid nitrogen temperature. This is
not specially melted material, just commercial quality. At this ferrite level, there are
no fears of hot cracking.
On the other hand, if you want to use a flux-shielded process, you will have to look at
filler metals below 5 FN, with highly basic slag systems. As a result of the Szuma-
chowski and Reid work, AWS A5.4 E316L-15 covered electrodes and AWS A5.22
23
E316LT-3 self-shielded flux cored wires with a highly basic slag system were produced
to 2 FN maximum. These were used for fabrication of 304L stainless steel magnet
cases for superconducting magnets for the fusion energy program at Lawrence Liver-
more National Laboratory. Note that, today, the E316LT-3 filler metal would be classi-
fied as E316LT0-3 because the AWS A5.22 standard, as revised in 1995, now includes
a welding position indicator (0 for downhand and horizontal positions only), which it
did not when the filler metal for Livermore was manufactured. The steel ranged up to
4 in. (100 mm) thick. Welds were qualified by testing both for 15-mils lateral expan-
sion at liquid nitrogen temperature and for fracture toughness at liquid helium tem-
perature. The welds met the toughness requirements and did not hot crack. The 316L
filler metals were chosen because 316L seems to be more resistant to hot cracking
than 308L when the ferrite is very low. Low phosphorus, low sulfur and high manga-
nese are also important to the hot cracking resistance of such weld metals.
Nickel-based-alloy filler metals (e.g., AWS A5.11 classes ENiCrFe-2, ENiCrFe-3, and
ENiCrMo-3) can also meet the cryogenic toughness requirements. These have no
ferrite, but are crack resistant. They cost considerably more than stainless steel
electrodes.
To sum up, your choices for meeting cryogenic toughness requirements are GMAW or
GTAW with filler metals of normal FN or slag-shielded filler metals with below 2 FN.
1.23 Matching Filler Metal for 310H Base Metal

Not 310H Filler Metal, but 310 Filler Metal?
Is 310H the correct filler metal for welding 310H base metal? I can find
? 310H filler metal in the covered electrode standard only, but that does not
seem to match the base metal carbon content
June 2001
Your observation is correct, 310H base metal and 310H filler metal do not match. Type
310H base metal is designated with an H only to differentiate it from Type 310S,
which has no minimum carbon requirement. Type 310H base metal has a minimum
carbon requirement. AWS filler metals bearing the 310 designation also have a
required minimum carbon content, except for flux cored wire classified according to
AWS A5.22. There is a much higher carbon version of 310, known as HK40, for which
the 310H filler metal in AWS A5.4 is intended. Table 1 lists the compositions of 310S
base metal, 310H base metal, 310 filler metals from the three relevant AWS stan-
dards, HK40 base metal and 310H filler metal.
Type 310 filler metal is generally made to a target carbon content of 0.10 to 0.12%
(even with flux cored wires) because, way back in the B.C. (before computers) era,
Hallock Campbell and R. David Thomas, Jr. (Welding Journal, November 1946), and
confirmed by G. E. Linnert and F. K. Bloom (Welding Journal February, 1947), deter-
24
Table 1310 Base Metals and Filler Metals
C, % Mn, % Si, % Cr, % Ni, %
ASTM A240 0.08 2.00 1.50 24.0 to 19.0 to

Type 310S maximum maximum maximum 26.0 22.0
ASTM A240 0.04 to 2.00 0.75 24.0 to 19.0 to

Type 310H 0.10 maximum maximum 26.0 22.0
AWS A5.4 0.08 to 1.0 to 0.75 25.0 to 20.0 to
E310-XX 0.20 2.5 maximum 28.0 22.5
AWS A5.9 0.08 to 1.0 to 0.30 to 25.0 to 20.0 to

ER310 0.15 2.5 0.65 28.0 22.5
AWS A5.22 0.20 1.0 to 1.0 25.0 to 20 to

E310TX-X maximum 2.5 maximum 28.0 22.5
ASTM A608 0.35 to 1.5 0.50 to 23.0 to 19.0 to

Grade HK40 0.45 maximum 2.00 27.0 22.0
AWS A5.4 0.35 to 1.0 to 0.75 25.0 to 20.0 to
E310H-XX 0.45 2.5 maximum 28.0 22.5
mined that tensile elongation in 310 weld metal was maximized at that carbon level.
Lower carbon deposits tend to contain many microcracks, which reduce tensile elonga-
tion. So the matching filler metal for 310H base metal is 310 filler metal.
1.24 What is the Correct Filler Metal for 316LN?

I have to weld 316LN base metal but find there is no AWS classification for
? 316LN filler metal. What is the correct filler metal to use? 316L? 317L?
July 2001
Normally, there are two possible concerns about joining 316LNstrength and corro-
sion resistance. The nitrogen addition to 316LN enhances both strength and corrosion
resistance as compared to 316L. Table 1 compares composition and strength of 316L
and 316LN, along with AWS A5.4 E316L-XX and E317L-XX covered electrodes.
You will find the E316L-XX electrode strength requirements a bit short of those for
the 316LN base metal, while the E317L-XX strength requirements match. So, there
is a tendency to select E317L-XX. However, it should be kept in mind that E316L-XX
25
Table 1Composition and Strength Requirements for 316L

and 316LN Base Metals, and 316L and 317L Electrodes
Tensile, Yield,
C, Mn, Si, Cr, Ni, Mo, N, ksi ksi %
Element % % % % % % % (MPa) (MPa) Elong.
316L 0.030 2.00 0.75 16.00 10.00 2.00 0.10 70 25 40

max. max. max. to to to max. (485) (170) min.
18.00 14.00 3.00 min.
316LN 0.030 2.00 0.75 16.00 10.00 2.00 0.10 75 30 40

max. max. max. to to to to (515) (205) min.
18.00 14.00 3.00 0.16
E316L-XX 0.04 0.50 0.90 17.00 11.0 2.00 N.S.(a) 70 N.S. 30
max. to max. to to to (490) min.
2.50 20.00 14.0 3.00
E317L-XX 0.04 0.50 0.90 18.00 12.00 3.00 N.S.(a) 75 N.S. 30

max. to max. to to to (520) min.
2.50 21.00 14.00 4.00
N.S. = Not Specified.
electrode deposits typically exceed 80 ksi (560 MPa) tensile strength and 50 ksi
(340 MPa) yield strength, so there is not a real mismatch, only a specification require-
ments mismatch.
The corrosion resistance is a bit more complicated because it depends strongly upon
the corrosive medium. One measure of corrosion resistance is the Pitting Resistance
Index, or PREN. This is often defined as the following:
PREN = % Cr + 3.3 % Mo + 16 % N
From Table 1, the nitrogen content of 316LN is likely to be about 0.10% higher than
that of E316L-XX weld metal, which increases the PREN of 316LN by 1.6 (16 0.10)
over that likely with E316L-XX weld metal. However, 1% more molybdenum in
E317L-XX increases its PREN by 3.3 over that of E316L-XX, which more than com-
pensates for the lack of nitrogen. So, again, there is a tendency to select E317L-XX
filler metal.
Before making a final selection, also consider there are other effects of the composition
difference between 317L filler metal and 316L filler metal. For example, E317L-XX
filler metal tends to contain considerable ferrite. 316LN base metal is sometimes
selected for use at cryogenic temperatures, where ferrite is detrimental to toughness.
So, I cant make a carte blanche recommendation to use 317L filler metal. You need to
consider the service environment to be sure there are no important disadvantages to
using 317L filler metal for your application.
26
1.25 Why is 308L Required to Meet 35% Elongation

While 316L is Only Required to Meet 30%
Elongation?
I just noticed in AWS A5.4 that the tensile elongation requirement for
? 316L stainless weld metal is only 30%, while that of 308L weld metal is
35%. I have always considered 316L to be a high-quality stainless steel weld
metal, so why should it be inferior to 308L in this respect?
January 2002
To put things in perspective, I ought first to point out that our highest quality struc-
tural steel weld metals, such as those from AWS A5.1 E7018, are required to meet
22% tensile elongation. Even the E7018M for naval combat vessels is only required to
meet 24% tensile elongation. So, in that respect, the 316L requirement of 30% elonga-
tion hardly seems to reflect inadequate or inferior ductility.
What you have noticed is a legacy of the 1940s, before the role of ferrite in preventing
microfissures in nominally austenitic stainless steel weld metal was fully understood.
As far as I know, no one who served on the joint ASTM and AWS committee that, in
1946, published ASTM A298-46T AWS A5.4-46T, Tentative Specification for Corro-
sion-Resisting Chromium and Chromium-Nickel Steel Welding Electrodes, is alive
today. However, the late R. David Thomas served on that committee, and his son, R.
David Thomas, Jr., still active and residing in Vermont, participated in the work that
led to this specification. I am indebted to Dave, Jr., for his recollections of that time
and his willingness to share them with my readers.
It seems the 316L weld metals of the 1940s normally did not contain ferrite. As a
result, they commonly contained some microfissures (short hot cracks, commonly per-
pendicular to the weld interface, in weld metal reheated by a subsequent weld pass).
The microfissures, also perpendicular to the tensile stress of an all-weld-metal tensile
specimen, tended to slightly reduce the tensile ductility. So, those 316L weld metals
could consistently exceed 30% elongation, but 35% was inconsistently met. On the
other hand, the 308L electrode deposits of that day commonly contained a little fer-
rite, in which condition, they were free of microfissures. Without microfissures, the
weld metal easily exceeded 35% elongation. If, however, the 308L contained no ferrite,
microfissures would occur and the weld metal would not consistently meet 35% elon-
gation. Therefore, 35% elongation was chosen as a way of conveniently discriminating
between 308L weld metal without microfissures and 308L with microfissures.
Times changed and today, 316L weld metal is commonly, but not always, designed to
contain a little ferrite. There seemed to be no reason to change the elongation require-
ments of AWS A5.4, so the 316L elongation requirements remain as they were written
in 1946. There is no technical reason today for 308L elongation requirements to be dif-
ferent from 316L elongation requirements. The difference is purely a legacy from the
state of the art of the 1940s.
I note further that AWS D1.6, Structural Welding CodeStainless Steel, does not dif-
ferentiate between weld metals with 30% elongation requirements and those with
27
35%. Weld metals with 30% elongation requirements are prequalified for structural
welds in the same base metals as weld metals with 35% elongation requirements.
Elongation of at least 30% indicates quite ductile material, and I would not consider
316L weld metal to be inferior to 308L weld metal.
1.26 Lamellar Tearing in 304L Stainless?

We are preparing to fabricate some rather heavy-section 304L stainless.
? Fillet-welded stiffeners will be on both sides of some approximately 2-in.-
thick plates. Years ago, we had trouble with lamellar tearing in weldments of
somewhat similar geometry but made of mild steel. This cost us a lot of money
and created a time delay. Should we be concerned about lamellar tearing in the
stainless?
January 2002
Lamellar tearing occurs when weld shrinkage imposes tensile strains in the through-
thickness direction of steel plate or shapes containing inclusions aligned or elongated
parallel to the surface. The strain tends to separate the inclusions from the matrix,
which opens a crack. Additional strain can cause the cracks to grow into inclusion-free
regions and can also cause linkage between a number of cracked regions, creating
much larger cracks. The tendency for lamellar tearing depends strongly upon inclu-
sions oriented parallel to the steel surface. Steels with poor deoxidation practice are
especially prone to lamellar tearing.
ASTM A770/A770M, Standard Specification for Through-Thickness Tension Testing of

Steel Plates for Special Applications, can be used to assess the tendency for lamellar
tearing of plates 1 in. (25 mm) thick or greater. A test specimen is produced by making
a pair of full-penetration welds to opposite surfaces of the plate sample under test,
then machining two round tensile specimens whose reduced section length is in the
through-thickness direction. The specimens are then pulled to fracture and the reduc-
tion of area is determined for each. A minimum of 20% reduction in area is specified
by the standard to indicate a plate resistant to lamellar tearing. This standard and
the test requirement are primarily intended for carbon-manganese and low-alloy
steels, but the results could be applicable to stainless steels as well.
However, stainless steels such as 304L are invariably produced using argon-oxygen
decarburization, or some similar refining method. As a result, these steels tend to
have very low levels of inclusions, and there is little tendency for the inclusions to
align parallel to the plate surface. Therefore, the reduction in area in the through-
thickness direction of austenitic stainless steels like 304L is generally high. I think
it highly unlikely you will encounter lamellar tearing in 304L. In my opinion, requir-
ing the ASTM A770/A770M test of 304L stainless steel is likely to be a needless
expense.
28
1.27 Stainless Filler Metal to meet 15 mils Lateral

Expansion at 320F?
Although our shop has built mainly mild steel vessels, we are considering
? bidding to build a 304L stainless steel vessel for very low-temperature
service. The contract will include a weld metal toughness requirement of at least
15 mils lateral expansion at 320F. What is this requirement, and is it hard to
meet? Also, what filler metals will meet this requirement?
May 2002
By far, the most common way to specify toughness for mild steel and low-alloy steel is
by the energy absorbed in breaking the standard Charpy specimen at a particular
temperature. This energy requirement is usually 20 ft-lb (27 J) at a temperature such
as 20F (9C). However, the yield strength of austenitic stainless steels increases
markedly at cryogenic temperatures such as 320F (196C), so that 20 ft-lb at that
temperature is not considered to provide sufficient evidence of toughness. Therefore,
the ASME Code uses the lateral expansion criterion instead.
The standard Charpy specimen is 10-mm (0394.-in.) square in cross section. When it
is struck while conducting the test, the face opposite the notched face mushrooms a
bit. The extent of mushrooming is related to the toughness. This mushrooming can be
measured as the lateral expansion. After the mushrooming, the width of the specimen
at the struck face is measured with a micrometer and the increase in width, as com-
pared to the original width, is the lateral expansion figure reported. The most com-
mon lateral expansion requirement is 0.015 in. (0.38 mm) minimum, or your stated
15 mils. For conducting the test at 320F (196C), liquid nitrogen is the ideal tem-
perature-control bath for the specimen immediately prior to the test because liquid
nitrogen boils at that temperature.
Unlike mild steel, austenitic stainless steel does not normally experience a sharp
transition from ductile fracture to brittle fracture with falling temperature. Instead,
there is usually a very gradual decrease in toughness, as measured by the Charpy V-
notch impact test (either as energy for fracture or lateral expansion), with falling tem-
perature. When a mild steel or low-alloy steel is broken in the Charpy V-notch test
and a low energy fracture is obtained, cleavage facets normally appear as bright crys-
tal facets on the fracture surface. This seldom happens with austenitic stainless steel,
even at cryogenic temperatures. But there is still some risk of fast-propagating frac-
ture at cryogenic temperatures with austenitic stainless steels, and the 15 mils lateral
expansion requirement seems to correlate well with resistance to fast-propagating
fracture.
Szumachowski and Reid, in a two-part report (Welding Journal, November 1978 and
February 1979), studied factors that influenced Charpy V-notch lateral expansion and
fracture energy of austenitic stainless steel weld metals deposited from covered elec-
trodes. They found that 15-mils lateral expansion could be met with 308L or 316L
filler metal provided that:
29
1. Ferrite was maintained low (less than 2 FN was preferred)
2. Nitrogen was maintained low (less than 0.06%)
3. A DC-lime coating (-15 type) improved the results.
Further studies have found the rules developed by Szumachowski and Reid are gener-
ally applicable to submerged arc welding and flux cored arc welding as well. However,
there are two problems with applying these rules. The first is that low-ferrite, low-
nitrogen filler metals are not readily available. Often, special orders with long lead
times are required to obtain such filler metals. In the case of submerged arc welding,
you may have to purchase a large amount of wire in order to get low-ferrite, low-nitrogen
wire. The second problem is that austenitic stainless steel weld metal with less than
2 FN has a pronounced tendency towards hot cracking.
There is a better way. The clue is in the Szumachowski and Reid finding that DC-lime
coatings gave better results than rutile coatings at the same ferrite and nitrogen level.
They just didnt explore far enough. The toughness difference between the DC-lime
coatings and the rutile coatings studied by Szumachowski and Reid is explainable by
weld metal oxygen level. The weld metal oxygen is mostly present as oxide inclusions,
which help to nucleate and grow the fracture in a Charpy V-notch test, or in a real ser-
vice fracture. Typical weld metal oxygen levels from a stainless steel DC-lime coating
(E308L-15 or E316L-15, for example) are about 450 to 500 parts per million (ppm).
Typical weld metal oxygen levels from a stainless steel rutile coating (E308L-16 or
E316L-16, for example) are about 600 to 700 ppm. Typical weld metal oxygen levels
from a rutile-silica coating (E308L-17 or E316L-17, for example, which Szumachowski
and Reid did not study) are about 900 to 1000 ppm.
Submerged arc welding with high basicity fluxes produces weld metal oxygen content
no lower than that obtained with DC-lime coated electrodes. Submerged arc welding
with more acid fluxes produces higher weld metal oxygen content. Flux cored arc
welding with the common stainless steel wires made today produces weld metal oxy-
gen content comparable to that of rutile-silica covered electrodes, or even higher. So
the better way does not lie in the flux-shielded welding processes.
The better way lies in getting rid of the flux. Because they have no slag, gas metal arc
welding (GMAW), gas tungsten arc welding (GTAW), and plasma arc welding (PAW)
typically produce weld metal with about 100 to 150 ppm of oxygen. At such oxygen
levels, weld metal with more reasonable levels of ferrite can produce well over 15 mils
lateral expansion. In several tests Ive run, I have found well over 15 mils lateral
expansion at 320F (196C) with weld metal of up to 10 FN, or even more. With
such weld metal, there is no tendency toward hot cracking. This means you can buy
readily available ER308LSi, ER308L, ER316LSi, or ER316L filler metal for these
inert gas (or nearly inert gas) welding processes with good assurance that you can
meet the toughness requirement. The use of argon with 1 or 2% oxygen does not seem
to raise the weld metal oxygen level sufficiently to do any damage to the toughness.
The higher silicon of the ER308LSi or 316LSi does not seem to matter either and is
very desirable from the point of view of weld metal wetting.
I suggest you run the procedure qualification with these solid stainless steel wires and
an inert gas of no more than 2% oxygen in argon.
30
1.28 305 Tube Welding vs. 304?

We have a contract to fabricate 4-in. Schedule 40 Type 305 stainless steel
? tubing. The assembly is to carry compressed air. We have previously
welded Type 304 and Type 304L pipe and tubing, but not 305. The composition of
305 looks similar to that of 304. We plan to make a gas tungsten arc (GTA) root
pass (argon purge), then fill with covered electrodes. Can we use 308 filler metal?
Are there any pitfalls in welding 305 that make it different from welding 304?
September 2002
Four-inch Schedule 40 tubing has an actual OD of 4.5 in. (114 mm) and wall thickness
of 0.237 in. (6.02 mm) (ASTM A813/A813M, Standard Specification for Single- or
Double-Welded Austenitic Stainless Steel Pipe). A GTA root followed by SMAW fill
passes is entirely reasonable. There are a couple of pitfalls, however, that should be
taken into consideration.
Type 305 stainless can be a bit higher in nickel and lower in chromium than Type 304.
The higher nickel gives Type 305 the property of a lower rate of work hardening than
that of 304. So Type 305 is generally better suited to cold bending or deep drawing,
which may be the reason your customer has called for Type 305. Type 305 can also be
higher in carbon content than Type 304, although that is not necessarily so. Table 1
compares the composition requirements of these two alloys as given in the ASTM
A554, Standard Specification for Welded Stainless Steel Mechanical Tubing. Also
included in Table 1, for comparison, are the composition requirements for 308 rods for
GTA welding and 308 covered electrodes as given in the AWS A5.9, Specification for
Bare Stainless Steel Welding Electrodes and Rods, and AWS A5.4, Specification for
Stainless Steel Electrodes for Shielded Metal Arc Welding, respectively.
Note from Table 1, there is some overlap in all of the composition ranges of the MT-
304 and MT-305, so it is possible for certain compositions to be classified as either
Table 1Chemical Composition Ranges for ASTM A554 MT-304 and MT-305
Tubing, AWS A5.9 R308 Rods, and AWS A5.4 E308-XX Electrode Deposits
Product C, % Mn, % P, % S, % Si, % Cr, % Ni, %
MT-304 0.08 2.00 0.04 0.03 1.00 18.00 to 8.00 to

max. max. max. min. max. 20.00 11.00
MT-305 0.12 2.00 0.04 0.03 1.00 17.00 to 10.00 to

ER308 or 0.08 1.00 to 0.03 0.03 0.30 to 19.50 to 9.00 to
R308 max. 2.50 max. max. 0.65 22.00 11.00
E308-15, 0.08 0.50 to 0.04 0.03 0.90 18.00 to 9.00 to

-16, or -17 max. 2.50 max. max. max. 21.00 11.00
31
MT-304 or MT-305. There are no differences in mechanical property requirements

between MT-304 and MT-305 (75 ksi [517 MPa] minimum tensile strength, 30 ksi
[207 MPa] minimum yield strength, and 35% minimum elongation in 2 in. [100 mm]).
The first potential pitfall with 305 stainless tubing lies in the GTA root pass. Under
ordinary circumstances, a GTA root pass in stainless tubing is generally made with
little or no filler metal. That means the composition of the root pass is largely, or
entirely, that of the base metal. The composition of 304 base metal almost always
results in a little ferrite in a GTA root pass without filler metal, so there is no ten-
dency for hot cracking. But that is not necessarily the case with 305. Assuming a low
nitrogen content such as 0.02%, the higher nickel and lower chromium limits of 305
when plotted on the WRC-1992 Diagram would indicate the greater part of the possi-
ble composition ranges would contain no ferrite. The possibility of centerline cracking
is rather high if the weld solidifies without ferrite. So the GTA weld root in the 305
could be sensitive to hot cracking.
One way to deal with the possibility of centerline cracking is to specify 3.0 FN mini-
mum, calculated using the WRC-1992 Diagram from the composition of the 305 stain-
less tubing. To do this accurately, you will need the manufacturers certified material
test report, including nitrogen, for the tubing.
But, if you are buying off-the-shelf 305 tubing, you may not be able to find it with non-
zero calculated FN. In that case, your best (safest) course of action is to force the
welder to use a lot of 308 (or 308L) filler metal in the root pass. You can do this by
opening the joint so there is a root opening of 1/8 to 5/32 in. (3 to 4 mm). Welders dont
like such wide-open root openings, however, because a lot of skill and attention are
required to produce a good root profile with an open root. Another alternative is to set
up the Welding Procedure Specification (WPS) to require a consumable insert of the
IN308 or IN308L classification according to AWS A5.30, Specification for Consumable
Inserts. The composition of IN308 is identical to that of the ER308 of AWS A5.9 (typi-
cally, IN308 is produced by roll forming the same rod stock used to make ER308), and
is designed to provide ferrite in the root pass. AWS B2.1-8-216, Standard Welding Pro-
cedure Specification (WPS) for Gas Tungsten Arc Welding with Consumable Inserts fol-
lowed by Shielded Metal Arc Welding of Austenitic Stainless Steel (M-8/P-8/S-8,
Group 1), 1/8 through 1-1/2 inch Thick, IN3XX, ER3XXX, and E3XX-XX, As-Welded
Condition, Primarily Pipe Applications, addresses this exactly, except that 305 is not
one of the base metals listed. Just as Type 304, Type 305 stainless would be catego-
rized as a P-8 material because it falls within the 14.5 to 30% Cr and 7.5 to 15% Ni
composition ranges of P-8.
If you use GTAW for the joint root, I suggest using an IN308 or IN308L consumable
insert for the root pass as part of your WPS.
The second possible pitfall lies in the carbon content range of the 305 base metal. Car-
bon is allowed to be as high as 0.12%, versus 0.08% in 304 base metal. This, coupled
with the slightly lower chromium content of 305 versus 304, may possibly make the
305 more susceptible to sensitization in the weld heat-affected zone (HAZ). Sensitiza-
tion occurs in the HAZ during exposure of the material to peak temperatures in the
approximate temperature range of 900 to 1600F (500 to 807C), where chromium car-
bides precipitate on austenite grain boundaries. Because carbon atoms diffuse much
faster in this temperature range than do chromium atoms, chromium-depleted
regions form adjacent to the grain boundaries, making the metal susceptible to inter-
32
granular corrosion. Of course, compressed air is not a very corrosive environment

unless condensation of moisture is allowed to occur. And a higher upper limit for car-
bon in 305 vs. 304 does not necessarily mean the actual carbon content of a given 305
tube will be higher than that of a given 304 tube. But the possibility is there, so that
should be given consideration.
If the service environment is one that could produce intergranular corrosion, then you
have a concern, and there are two possible approaches. One approach applies if you
have the luxury of writing a purchasing specification for the 305 tubingyou could
specify that it be low carbon (0.03% maximum), but that would likely require you to
buy a large quantity of the tubing, with a long lead time. The second approach, if you
are forced to use higher carbon tubing, is to use a very low-heat-input welding process
to minimize the time available for sensitization. The best you can do for low heat
input is to put in the root pass and at least one additional layer with short-circuiting
transfer GMA welding instead of the GTA root you planned to use. Getting a good root
contour with short-circuiting GMA, without incomplete root fusion, is not easy, but
there are welding power sources available with specially programmed output wave
shapes that make a good root pass relatively easy. It would be to your advantage to
look into using such machines if you elect to go the GMA short-circuiting transfer
route.
1.29 Filler Metal for Nitronic1 Stainless?

I have a contract to fulfill that calls for welding Nitronic 30 stainless steel
? frames and structures. As this base metal is new to me, I am unsure what
filler metal I should use. Are there any cracking issues I should be aware of, and
is the WRC-1992 Diagram suitable for predicting ferrite in a GTA root pass with-
out filler metal?
November 2002
Nitronic 30 is one of a family of austenitic stainless steels that differ from a common
austenitic stainless such as 304L in that most of the nickel of the 304L has been
replaced by a combination of nitrogen and manganese. Nickel is responsible, in 304L,
for making the alloy stable austenite. In the case of Nitronic 30, the high manganese
(about 8%) serves to make nitrogen more soluble, and the nitrogen does the job of sta-
bilizing the austenite microstructure. Table 1 compares the composition ranges of
304L and Nitronic 30, as specified in the ASTM A240 standard.
Annealed Nitronic 30 has considerably higher strength than annealed 304L, which is
one of the attractions of the alloy. Table 2 compares the mechanical property require-
ments, in the annealed condition, of the two alloys, as specified in ASTM A240.
1. Nitronic is a registered trademark of AK Steel.
33
Table 1304L and Nitronic 30 Compositions
Steel %C % Mn %P %S % Si % Cr % Ni %N
304L 0.030 2.00 0.045 0.030 0.75 18.0 to 8.0 to 0.10

(UNS S30403) max. max. max. max. max. 20.0 12.0 max.
Nitronic 30 0.030 7.0 to 0.040 0.030 1.00 15.0 to 1.50 to 0.15 to

(UNS S20400) max. 9.0 max. max. max. 17.0 3.00 0.30
Table 2304L and Nitronic 30 Mechanical Property Requirements
Tensile Rockwell B
Strength, Yield Strength, % Elongation in Hardness,
Steel minimum minimum 2 in., minimum maximum
304L (UNS 70 ksi 25 ksi 40.0 92

S30403) (485 MPa) (170 MPa)
Nitronic 30 95 ksi 48 ksi 35.0 100

(UNS S20400) (655 MPa) (330 MPa)
There is no exact match for Nitronic 30 in the AWS filler metal specifications. How-
ever, it is not necessary to provide an exact match as long as the properties of the filler
metal equal or exceed the important properties of the base metal. If corrosion resis-
tance is the main concern, 308L filler metal should perform as well or better unless
the environment contains chlorides. If the environment contains chlorides, making
pitting or stress corrosion cracking possibilities, then I suggest a low-nickel austenitic
stainless steel filler metal such as 209, 219, or 240. You may, however, encounter diffi-
culty obtaining these filler metals because they are not readily available. Another
choice would be a more readily available duplex ferritic-austenitic stainless filler
metal such as 2209.
The 209, 219, 240, and 2209 filler metals are also strength matches for Nitronic 30,
while 308L is an undermatching filler metal. Table 3 lists the compositions of these
filler metals as given in AWS A5.4, Specification for Stainless Steel Electrodes for
Shielded Metal Arc Welding. The 240 composition is the closest match to Nitronic 30.
Table 4 lists the corresponding mechanical property requirements. AWS A5.9, Specifi-
cation for Bare Stainless Steel Welding Electrodes and Rods, gives the bare wires in all
four of these alloys for gas metal arc welding, submerged arc welding, or gas tungsten
arc welding, but no mechanical property requirements are specified. Flux cored wires
with mechanical property requirements for 2209 and 308L, but not for 209, 219, or
240, are specified in AWS A5.22, Specification for Stainless Steel Electrodes for Flux
Cored Arc Welding and Stainless Steel Flux Cored Rods for Gas Tungsten Arc Welding.
As with any austenitic stainless steel, cracking issues center around the presence or
absence of a little ferrite in the weld metal and in the hottest part of the heat-affected
34
Table 3Filler Metal Compositions from AWS A5.4 Suitable for Nitronic 30
Filler
Metal %C % Mn %P %S % Si % Cr % Ni % Mo %N
308L 0.04 0.5 to 0.04 0.03 0.90 18.0 to 9.0 to 0.75

209 0.06 4.0 to 0.04 0.03 0.90 20.5 to 9.5 to 1.5 to 0.10 to
max. 7.0 max. max. max. 24.0 12.0 3.0 0.30
219 0.06 8.0 to 0.04 0.03 1.00 19.0 to 5.5 to 0.75 0.10 to
max. 10.0 max. max. max. 21.5 7.0 max. 0.30
240 0.06 10.5 to 0.04 0.03 1.00 17.0 to 4.0 to 0.75 0.10 to
max. 13.5 max. max. max. 19.0 6.0 max. 0.30
2209 0.04 0.5 to 0.04 0.03 0.90 21.5 to 8.5 to 2.5 to 0.08 to
max. 2.5 max. max. max. 23.5 10.5 3.5 0.20
Table 4Filler Metal Mechanical Property Requirements from AWS A5.4
Tensile Strength, % Elongation in

Filler Metal minimum 2 in., minimum
308L 75 ksi (520 MPa) 35

209 100 ksi (690 MPa) 15
219 90 ksi (602 MPa) 15
240 100 ksi (690 MPa) 15
2209 100 ksi (690 MPa) 20
zone. Twenty years ago, Harry Espy2 reported on welding of several of the Nitronic
stainlesses. Nitronic 30 was not one of the alloys considered in that report, but it did
include Nitronic 33, which is similar, and for which 240 filler metal is a match. Espy
showed ferrite in the hottest part of the heat-affected zone and in autogenous weld
metal with Nitronic 33. He tried to predict the ferrite he measured using the constitu-
tion diagrams of that time, the Schaeffler diagram and the DeLong diagram, but got
poor agreement. He then produced a modified Schaeffler diagram that seemed to rea-
sonably predict the measured ferrite he observed. His diagram treated the manganese
effect as a constant in the nickel equivalent and offered a variable effect for nitrogen.
Today, of course, the WRC-1992 Diagram is the official constitution diagram of the
ASME Code, but it was not available to Espy. It is interesting to test Espys results as
compared to the predictions of the WRC-1992 Diagram to see how well they agree.
That is done in Table 5.
2. Espy, R. H. 1982. Weldability of nitrogen-strengthened stainless steels. Welding Journal

61(5): 149-s to 156-s.
35
Table 5Reported FN of Espy vs. Predictions of the WRC-1992 Diagram
Espy WRC-
Nitronic % % % % % % % % % Measured 1992
Alloy C Mn Si Cr Ni Mo N V Nb FN FN
33 0.057 12.8 0.42 17.5 3.7 0.33 1 0.7
35W 0.070 11.2 0.36 18.3 4.8 0.16 6 7.6
35W 0.059 10.8 0.33 18.7 4.8 0.17 4 10.2
35W 0.060 13.5 0.10 18.2 5.2 0.17 4 6.3
35W 0.068 13.4 0.10 19.2 5.1 0.18 5 9.1
35W 0.042 11.7 0.46 18.3 4.2 0.19 6 11.5
35W 0.042 11.8 0.47 18.5 4.2 0.20 7 11.5
40 0.027 9.1 0.64 20.3 7.1 0.28 3 4.5
40 0.026 8.8 0.72 20.1 7.0 0.29 4 3.7
40 0.033 8.9 0.64 20.3 7.3 0.30 2 2.7
40 0.020 8.9 0.68 20.2 7.2 0.31 2 3.2
40 0.017 8.9 0.73 20.1 7.2 0.32 3 2.7
40 0.022 9.2 0.62 20.2 7.1 0.33 2 2.4
40W 0.030 8.3 0.42 20.3 6.8 0.25 5 7.0
50 0.038 4.7 0.55 21.0 12.5 2.2 0.23 0.16 0.18 3 1.9
50 0.036 4.8 0.46 21.5 12.6 2.2 0.25 0.15 0.17 2 2.4
50 0.041 5.0 0.47 21.7 12.7 2.2 0.26 0.18 0.16 5 2.0
50 0.050 5.4 0.42 21.5 12.4 2.1 0.27 0.19 0.20 1 1.3
50 0.043 4.8 0.52 20.9 12.7 2.2 0.28 0.17 0.17 0 0.2
50W 0.046 6.1 0.41 20.9 10.1 1.8 0.21 0.23 5 6.0
50W 0.046 6.2 0.32 21.1 10.3 1.8 0.21 0.23 7 6.1
50W 0.033 6.5 0.26 21.6 10.3 1.9 0.21 0.25 8 7.0
50W 0.047 6.1 0.41 21.9 10.5 2.0 0.22 0.24 9 8.0
50W 0.034 6.1 0.38 21.4 10.6 1.8 0.24 0.22 8 5.7
50W 0.036 6.2 0.60 21.6 10.6 1.8 0.25 0.23 7 5.6
60 0.076 8.5 4.2 17.4 8.4 0.13 7 0
60W 0.058 7.7 3.4 18.5 9.4 0.14 4 0
36
With the exception of Nitronic 60 and Nitronic 60W, the WRC-1992 FN predictions
agree well with the measured values Espy reported. The 60 and 60W compositions
include more than 3% silicon, which is well outside the 0 to 1% Si range considered in
developing the WRC-1992 Diagram, so the lack of agreement is not surprising. It has
long been suspected silicon above 1% begins to act as a ferrite-promoting element.
At any rate, it seems the WRC-1992 Diagram can be used to anticipate root pass
autogenous weld Ferrite Number. So you can use it, with the base metal composition,
to estimate the GTAW root pass weldability of Nitronic 30 steel or of the other alloys
in Table 5, except for 60 and 60W.
1.30 Linear Porosity in 310?

We have been making pipes for hot air ducts of 310H stainless for a num-
? ber of years. We have used E310-16 covered electrodes with little difficulty.
Recently, we started making some thicker components (1/2 or 5/8 in.), so we
began using submerged arc welding (SAW) with 1/16-in. ER310. There are both
butt joints and fillet welds. In developing procedures for SAW, we had some cen-
terline cracking problems, but those we solved by reducing wire feed speed and
voltage to produce small, somewhat convex, beads so that the upper layers of
weld deposit consist of two passes per layer instead of one pass per layer. After
welding, the weld surface is smoothed by grinding, then we examine the surface
with dye penetrant testing. With the covered electrodes, small aligned indica-
tions were occasionally found, but with SAW these indications are found much
more frequently, and they seem to be near the joint centerline in the top layer.
The indications are only about 1/16 in. in diameter. The inspector terms these
aligned indications aligned porosity. We first thought the aligned porosity was
coming from damp flux, so we baked the flux at 650F and kept it above 250F
until welding, but this did not seem to help. Repairing with the covered elec-
trodes generally takes care of the problem. Radiography of the butt joints doesnt
show any indications before repair or afterward, so we are sure we are producing
a quality product. But the economic advantage we anticipated from SAW is being
lost due to the frequency of repair. We are thinking seriously about abandoning
SAW. What is the cause of this aligned porosity, and what can be done to prevent
it?
March 2003
I believe what your inspector has described as aligned porosity is not porosity at all.
Your experience is not all that uncommon when welding 310H and other fully austen-
itic stainless steels. I believe the aligned porosity indications are really caused by dye
penetrant bleeding from microfissures. Microfissures are tiny hot cracks that tend to
occur along the weld interface of metal reheated by a subsequent weld pass. The
reheated metal could be base metal or weld deposit. Since you describe the aligned
porosity as being along the joint centerline of a two-pass cover layer, I expect the
microfissures are in the first of the two passes making up the cover layer, perpendicu-
lar to the weld interface at the edge of the second pass of the cover layer.
37
The welding procedure you describe is a good one for SAW of 310H and other fully aus-
tenitic stainless steel filler metals. The fact that you are not finding the indications
along the edges of the joint preparation, but only near the centerline, suggests the
problem is with the filler metal. The deposit of ER310 will be fully austenitic since
there is no possibility for ferrite in the 310 composition. Fully austenitic stainless
steel welds are sensitive to both hot cracks along the centerline and microfissures
along the fusion boundary. Within the whole family of fully austenitic stainless steel
weld metals, 310 is among the most resistant to hot cracking and microfissures, but it
is not immune to these problems.
The degree of sensitivity depends in large part upon the phosphorus and sulfur con-
tent of the metal. AWS A5.9, Specification for Bare Stainless Steel Welding Electrodes
and Rods, which is the standard that covers the ER310 wire, limits the content of
phosphorus and sulfur to 0.03% maximum of each of these tramp elements. This
means the sum of P + S is limited to 0.6% maximum. Normally, steel mills find it very
easy to reduce sulfur in melting stainless steel, so sulfur content less than 0.010% is
rather normal. But steel mills find it is extremely difficult to reduce phosphorus in
melting stainless steel, so phosphorus tends toward the high side of the allowable
limit in many commercial products. Li and Messler,1 in a study of GTAW melting of
virtually ferrite-free 308 stainless, found that P is more potent than S in promoting
fusion zone hot cracking, but that S is the more potent in promoting microfissures in
reheated weld metal. Of course, 308 stainless doesnt necessarily behave exactly the
same as 310. In my experience, when the sum of the P + S gets up to about 0.030%,
microfissures appear along the fusion boundary between weld passes in 310 stainless
welds.
In SAW, the wire is not the only possible source of phosphorus and sulfur. The flux
also can contribute these tramp elements to the weld metal. I suggest you examine
both the wire and the flux for phosphorus and sulfur. You should be able to obtain a
Certified Material Test Report (CMTR) for the wire from your supplier, which should
report the phosphorus and sulfur. However, many times the supplier reports these ele-
ments to only two significant figures because that is the number of significant figures
in the AWS A5.9 specification. So, for example, when P is reported as 0.02%, the
actual measured value, using the round-off rules in ASTM E29, could be anywhere
between and including 0.015% and 0.025%. And, for example, when sulfur is reported
as 0.01%, the actual measured value could be anywhere between and including
0.006% and 0.014%. So, in this example, the actual sum of P + S could be anywhere
between and including 0.021% and 0.039% when the CMTR reports 0.02% P and
0.01% S. There is sufficient range in microfissuring tendency within the P + S range of
0.021% to 0.039% to produce considerable variation in aligned porosity.
The wire P and S, to three significant figures each, is necessary to determine the con-
tribution of the flux to the deposit P + S. Then take chips from either the top layer of
weld metal in your joint or from the top layer of a six-layer buildup made with the
same flux and wire. Have these chips analyzed for P and S to three significant figures
also. With this information, as compared to my benchmark P + S < 0.030%, you should
1. Li, L., and Messler, R. W. 1999. The effects of phosphorus and sulfur on susceptibility to weld
hot cracking in austenitic stainless steels. Welding Journal 78(12): 387-s to 396-s.
38
be able to determine if the wire and/or the flux is the cause of the aligned porosity
indications you observe. If the wire turns out to be the source of high P + S, I suggest
you contact your supplier to obtain a new heat of ER310 and a flux recommendation to
produce weld metal with P + S < 0.030%. If the flux turns out to make an important
contribution to the P + S, while the wire is low in P + S, then I suggest you concentrate
on finding a flux that will not contribute significant P + S. A flux identified by the sup-
plier as being of high basicity is a good candidate.
1.31 Crater Cracking in ER209 Stainless at 4 FN?

We are trying to make fillet welds with ER209 in matching base metal
? (Nitronic 50). We are experiencing severe crater cracking and some center-
line cracking. We measured ferrite on the cracked welds and found about 4 FN. I
thought 3 to 4 FN was sufficient to prevent hot cracking. Why are these welds
cracking, and what can we do about it?
November 2003
A sample of the wire that was producing the hot cracks was supplied to my laboratory.
About 50 g of the wire was cut up to melt a button in a GTA furnace. The button con-
tained extensive crater cracking, as shown in Figure 1. It should be appreciated that
such a button solidifies completely unrestrained, which should not promote hot cracking.
Measurement on the button beside the cracking revealed 4.1 FN. The wire manufac-
turers certification included all elements necessary to calculate FN by means of the
WRC-1992 Diagram, but a calculated FN was not included. This was obtained by
extrapolating the iso-ferrite lines of the WRC-1992 Diagram to the calculated chro-
mium equivalent of 23.3 and the calculated nickel equivalent of 19.1. The composition
data, the measured FN, the calculated FN, and the AWS A5.9 requirements for filler
metal of the ER209 classification are included in Table 1. Considering that extrapola-
tion was used to calculate FN, the calculated FN of 1.3 is in reasonable agreement
with the measured FN of 4.1.
Although 3 to 4 FN is normally sufficient to guarantee freedom from hot cracking,

there are certain special cases in which it is not. These special cases include very
high-alloy stainless steel weld metals, such as that of ER209. The WRC-1992 Diagram
for stainless steel weld metals includes a dashed line that separates compositions that
solidify as primary ferrite (FA region on the diagram) from compositions that solidify
as primary austenite (AF region on the diagram). Primary ferrite solidification is very
resistant to hot cracking, while primary austenite solidification is sensitive to hot
cracking. This dashed line is not quite parallel to the iso-ferrite lines of the WRC-1992
Diagram. It is slightly skewed, so that lean alloys such as 16-8-2 can solidify as pri-
mary ferrite even with less than 2 FN, while rich alloys such as ER209 solidify as pri-
mary austenite even with more than 5 FN. Figure 2 shows this situation, including
the ER209 composition supplied, on the WRC-1992 Diagram.
39
Note crater cracking. The scale at left reads in mm.
Figure 1GTA Button Melt of ER209
Table 1Composition and Ferrite Number of ER209 Filler Metal
FN
% % % % % % % % % Mea- WRC-
Element C Mn Si Cr Ni Mo V Cu N sured 1992
ER209 0.043 4.63 0.38 21.06 11.91 2.19 0.14 0.19 0.28 4.1 1.3
AWS 0.05 4.0 0.90 20.5 9.5 1.5 0.10 0.75 0.10 Not Not
A5.9 max. to max. 24.0 to to to max. to Speci- Speci-
ER209 7.0 12.0 3.0 0.30 0.30 fied fied
Its risky to extrapolate both the iso-ferrite lines and the dashed line between primary
ferrite solidification and primary austenite solidification, but if that is done, one
would estimate that a calculated FN of about 8, minimum, would be necessary to
obtain primary ferrite solidification with the nickel equivalent of this filler metal.
Note: The inquirer subsequently obtained a new heat of ER209 filler metal with calcu-
lated FN of 9, and no more hot cracking was observed.
40
Figure 2WRC-1992 Diagram with ER209 Sample Plotted
1.32 Water Cooling to Reduce Interpass Time for

304H?
We are welding heavy wall 304H stainless steel pipe for a power plant
? using E308H-16 and ER308H filler metals. Our Welding Procedure Speci-
fications are essentially AWS B2.1-8-212 (GTAW), AWS B2.1-8-213 (SMAW), and
AWS B2.1-8-214 (GTAW root and SMAW fill). Each of these specifies 350F
(175C) maximum interpass temperature, 50F (10C) minimum. When we put
two welders on a joint, the temperature builds up in the pipe around the joint, so
we have to stop welding for a while, and we lose the advantage of putting two
welders on the joint. We really dont want to specify a higher interpass tempera-
ture, as the welders complain now about the hot pipe. Is there anything wrong
with accelerating the cooling using forced air draft, water mist spray, or even
direct water cooling to maintain the maximum interpass temperature? The
Welding Procedure Specifications say nothing about accelerated cooling.
May 2004
Table 1 lists the compositions for 304H base metal (from ASTM A312), E308H-16 filler
metal (from AWS A5.4), and ER308H filler metal (from AWS A5.9). Note that each
includes a required minimum carbon content because carbon improves creep resis-
tance at high temperatures.
41
Table 1Compositions of 304H, E308H-16, and ER308H
Composition (%) (Single Values are max. Limits)
Alloy C Mn P S Si Cr Ni Mo Cu
TP304H 0.04 2.00 0.045 0.030 1.00 18.0 8.0

0.10 20.0 11.0
E308H-16 0.04 0.5 0.04 0.03 0.90 18.0 9.0 0.75 0.75
0.08 2.5 21.0 11.0
ER308H 0.04 1.0 0.03 0.03 0.30 19.5 9.0 0.50 0.75
0.08 2.5 0.65 22.0 11.0
In many cases, a maximum interpass temperature is specified for welding austenitic

stainless steels in order to limit chromium carbide precipitation on grain boundaries,
which occurs between about 900 and 1650F (480 and 900C) during welding. These
chromium carbides often form at the expense of chromium depletion beside the grain
boundaries, which is often referred to as sensitization because the steel becomes
sensitive to intergranular corrosion in aqueous environments. However, in the case of
304H piping for power plant applications, the service temperature is likely to be in
that temperature range, so any carbide precipitation that occurs during welding will
be insignificant compared to that which occurs as a result of service temperature
exposure. The reason for using 304H stainless steel pipe in a power plant is not so
much for corrosion resistance as for high-temperature creep resistance.
So, as a bit of an aside, I see no objection, other than welder discomfort, to allowing
interpass temperatures to exceed 350F (175C) for your particular application. But
that is not what you asked.
There is nothing wrong, from a metallurgical point of view, with accelerating the cool-
ing of austenitic stainless steel welds, provided that both base metals and the filler
metal are austenitic, which is the case in your situation. In fact, quenching from high
temperatures is part of the annealing heat treatment for austenitic stainless steels.
This is entirely different from the situation of welding ferritic steels or martensitic
stainless steels. In the latter two cases, accelerated cooling promotes undesirable
microstructures in the weld metal and the heat-affected zone. Nothing of the sort hap-
pens with austenitic stainless steels.
However, there are some practical concerns with applying accelerated cooling while
welding austenitic stainless steel. It is essential that whatever means is used for
accelerated cooling does not disturb the arc or its shielding. In both GTAW and SMAW,
use of forced air cooling or a water mist spray can displace shielding gas from either
the GTAW arc or the SMAW arc. Air contains nitrogen, and nitrogen in the arc leads
to nitrogen pickup in the weld metal. Water mist spray includes air, and the same con-
cern about nitrogen pickup arises. Nitrogen pickup results in loss of ferrite in the weld
metal, which can easily lead to solidification cracking. It is essential to prevent any
forced air or water mist spray from reaching the arc.
42
Water, if it enters the arc, decomposes into hydrogen and oxygen, and the hydrogen
leads to porosity in the weld. Welding over any wetness is especially risky in regard to
causing porosity. The joint surfaces must be kept dry to avoid this risk. Water contact
with any sort of crevice in the joint is especially to be avoided because it is difficult to
remove all of the water before welding over it.
Furthermore, covered electrodes can easily pick up moisture from exposure to damp
air. Using water mist spray is a great way to humidify the air, and a consequence of
moisture pickup in the electrode is again porosity. So it is advisable to protect the elec-
trodes from moisture pickup by treating them as if they were low-hydrogen electrodes.
Keep the electrodes in a sealed container, or in a heated oven.
Another concern is nonuniform application of accelerated cooling. In welding pipe, the

weld shrinkage is normally symmetrical, so the pipe axis tends to stay relatively
straight. However, if one quadrant of the pipe is cooled more effectively than another,
for example, by letting water run through the bottom of the pipe after the root pass is
completed, the pipe axis is likely to bend toward the cold quadrant as more layers of
weld metal are deposited. The cold quadrant achieves full strength more quickly than
the hotter quadrants, which causes this. So you may encounter greater distortion.
Finally, any introduction of water into an area where electric arc welding is being
done carries with it safety risks. Water generally increases the likelihood of stray elec-
trical currents that can be hazardous to those working in the area. And water on sur-
faces makes them slippery and can lead to a fall. Any introduction of water into a
welding environment should be carefully thought through and policed to avoid haz-
ards to people as well as to weld quality.
1.33 Austenite Reversion for 304L That Has Been

Cold Worked?
We submerged arc welded 0.5-in.-thick 304L plates, then cold formed them
? to make large heads for a low-pressure tank. The welds are lightly mag-
netic, which we expected, but the portions of the head around the small radius
bend areas are strongly magnetic. Our customer objects to these strongly mag-
netic regions and wants us to heat treat to remove the magnetic behavior. What
heat treatment can we use? We are afraid to quench from an annealing heat
treatment because of likely distortion.
January 2005
First of all, I suggest you explore with your customer the reason for the objection to
the magnetic areas. There will be a minor reduction in toughness in these areas, but
the toughness of 304L stainless steel is extremely high, so I would doubt that that is a
significant concern. I would expect magnetic areas in any 304L stainless with signifi-
cant cold forming, and I expect that there are countless examples in service today. In
all likelihood, your customer would receive a tank without heat treatment that is
every bit as serviceable as one with heat treatment. Heat treatment to eliminate mag-
43
netic areas seems like a needless expense to me. However, this opinion doesnt address
your original question.
The strong magnetic response in the small radius bend areas is a result of transforma-
tion of austenite to martensite during the cold forming. Austenite is nonmagnetic, but
martensite is strongly ferromagnetic. This is normal behavior to be expected when
304L is cold formed.
A full anneal would involve heating to 1900F (1040C), minimum, followed by imme-
diate water quenchaccording to ASTM A480. And you are right to be concerned
about distortion because it is very difficult to uniformly quench a large head.
That anneal would accomplish two things. First, it would cause any chromium car-
bides formed during heating to the annealing temperature to be dissolved, and
quenching prevents their reformation during cooling. Second, the anneal at 1900F, or
higher, causes any martensite resulting from cold forming to revert back to austenite,
which would remove the magnetic response you are observing.
In addition to distortion, a concern in any heat treatment of 304L is sensitizationthe
susceptibility to intergranular corrosion caused by chromium carbide precipitation on
austenite grain boundaries.
Type 304L stainless steel is quite resistant to sensitization because its carbon content
is less than 0.03%. Sensitization occurs normally during exposure between about 850
and 1650F (450 and 900C), when chromium diffusion cannot keep pace with carbon
diffusion so that chromium-depleted zones are formed near grain boundaries.
The other important question to be addressed concerns the heat treatment tempera-
tures where most of the martensite will revert back to austenite in the 304L.
Not long ago, Di Schino et al. (Ref. 1) did a study of austenite reversion in 304 stain-
less steel as a function of time and temperature. While 304 is not exactly 304L, it is
close enough in composition that the results should provide very useful guidance.
Their results show that, in less than 10 minutes at 900, 850, or 800C (1650, 1560,
or 1470F), virtually complete austenite reversion was obtained. However, lower tem-
peratures required significantly longer times to achieve a high percentage of austenite
reversion. Some austenite reversion was observed after 10 hours at as low as 600C
(1110F), but about 20% of the martensite remained. Ten hours at 650C (1200F)
reduced the martensite to less than 5% in that study. These temperatures are all
within the sensitizing temperature range.
With 304L, some amount of chromium carbide precipitation can be tolerated without
serious damage to corrosion resistance.
It should be noted that the first appearance of chromium carbide precipitates does not
coincide with the beginning of sensitization. Sensitization requires chromium deple-
tion around grain boundaries, which requires, in turn, time for considerable diffusion
to take place.
Folkhard (Ref. 2) provides a chart indicating that, in 18%Cr-8%Ni stainless steel con-
taining 0.04%C, chromium carbides will appear in a few minutes over a wide temper-
ature range, but sensitization will appear most rapidly at about 640C (1180F),
beginning in just over 1 hour at temperature. Further, if the carbon content is reduced
to 0.02% in the same alloy, sensitization will appear most rapidly at about 570C
(1030F), but beginning only after more than 10 hours at temperature.
44
Since you have 304L, you have a pretty good chance of avoiding sensitization alto-
gether if you perform an austenite reversion heat treatment at some temperature
between 650 and 800C (1200 and 1470F).
There is another factor to take into account, however. Heavy prior cold work speeds
diffusion at elevated temperatures, which may accelerate sensitization. If you intend
to perform heat treatment in the sensitizing temperature range, it is advisable to first
test a sample of cold formed material after the proposed heat treatment, to evaluate
whether or not sensitization has occurred. Be sure that the amount of cold working is
at least as much as your formed heads experienced.
There are standard tests for sensitization in austenitic stainless steels, defined in
ASTM A262. Either Practice B (commonly referred to as the Streicher Test) or Prac-
tice E (commonly referred to as the Strauss Test) in ASTM A262 would probably be
suitable. I would suggest that you evaluate several temperatures in the range of 650
to 800C (1200 to 1470F) for austenite reversion in your 304L steel, and evaluate
each temperature for sensitization.
If sensitization does occur at all of the temperatures tested, then you will have no
choice but to fully anneal at 1040C (1900F) or higher, and water quench, or to accept
the magnetic behavior the cold worked steel is now exhibiting.
References
1. Di Schino, A., Salvatori, I., and Kenny, J. M. 2002. Effects of martensite formation
and austenite reversion on grain refining of AISI 304 stainless steel. Journal of
Materials Science 37: 45614565.
2. Folkhard, E. 1988. Welding Metallurgy of Stainless Steels. New York, N.Y.: Springer-
Verlag, p. 108.
1.34 Low FN in ER347 Due to N Pickup?

We purchased ER347 wire for GMAW cladding on an ASTM A516-70 car-
? bon steel vessel. The wire is certified by the supplier to 11 FN. We have a
long history of using a special procedure for cladding that minimizes dilution so
that we obtain virtually the same deposit composition as that of the wire in only
two layers. We must meet 6 FN minimum, measured by instruments calibrated
to the AWS A4.2 standard. However, in this case, we are measuring only 3 to 4
FN in the second layer, which does not satisfy the customers requirement. We
verified that the second layer deposit composition is as expected. We cannot
understand why the FN is so low.
November 2005
From our phone conversation, I learned further that your suppliers certificate does
not include nitrogen, so I cant be sure how the wire FN was calculated. And I learned
that you do not have measured nitrogen content for the wire nor for the deposit.
Finally, I learned that your welding procedure, with 0.035-in. (0.9-mm) wire and 3/4-in.
(19-mm) contact-tip-to-work distance (CTWD), normally produces about 20% dilution
45
so that the second layer would consist of only 4% base metal dilution, which is consis-
tent with the deposit composition you have described to me.
The accuracy of ferrite prediction vs. measured ferrite is rather akin to the accuracy of
weather prediction vs. actual weather. We are better at both in recent years, but each
prediction is still imperfect. That said, I think it is unlikely that inaccuracy of predic-
tion accounts for the amount of difference you are seeing between predicted and mea-
sured FN.
I think it very likely that nitrogen pickup during welding explains what you are
observing. As long ago as 1973, Long and DeLong (Ref. 1) reported seeing even greater
reductions in FN due to nitrogen pickup in GMA and GTA welding of stainless steels.
For example, they reported that a welder using 0.045-in. (1.14-mm) ER308L obtained
a measured value of 9.1 FN and another welder, using the same spool of wire,
obtained a measured value of 0 FN. The difference in FN, they reported, was solely
due to a pickup of about 0.26% nitrogen, caused by improper technique by the second
welder.
Lets see how this might work. I dont have the exact chemical composition of your
wire and deposit, so I propose a hypothetical ER347 wire composition in Table 1 that
is, based on my experiences, typical of what you might get commercially, and matches
the predicted wire FN of about 11 that you described to me. I also include a typical
composition for A516-70 steel, as a hypothetical base metal. Then, assuming 20% dilu-
tion, I calculate a first layer and a second layer deposit composition. This is followed,
also in Table 1, by an adjustment in the second layer nitrogen content chosen to pro-
duce a final weld metal FN of 3.5. You can see that the nitrogen pickup necessary to
Table 1Typical Base Metal, Filler Metal, and Weld Metal Compositions
First Layer of Second Layer of 4% Dilution

Weld Metal Weld Metal4% with Nitrogen
Alloy A516-70 ER347 20% Dilution Dilution Pickup
%C 0.12 0.05 0.064 0.053 0.053
% Mn 1.0 1.2 1.16 1.19 1.19

% Si 0.3 0.5 0.46 0.49 0.49
% Cr 20.0 16.0 19.2 19.2
% Ni 9.5 7.6 9.1 9.1
% Nb 0.6 0.48 0.58 0.58
%N 0.03 0.024 0.029 0.113
WRC-92 Creq 0.0 20.4 16.3 19.6 19.6
WRC-92 Nieq 4.2 11.9 10.3 11.5 13.2
WRC-92 FN 11.2 1.5 9.0 3.5
46
explain the drop in FN that you have seen is 0.074% (0.1130.029). This is not a large
pickup compared to the results reported by Long and DeLong (Ref. 1), as noted above.
The picture becomes clearer by plotting the compositions on the WRC-1992 Diagram,
with extended axes to zero chromium and nickel equivalents and the addition of the
martensite boundary for 1% Mn. This is shown in Figure 1. First a tie-line is drawn
between the composition of the A516 base metal and the ER347 filler metal. All possi-
ble mixtures of this filler metal and this base metal must lie along this tie-line. For
20% dilution, the first layer of deposit is found 20% of the distance along the tie-line
from the ER347 toward the A516. The second layer composition, if no nitrogen pickup
has occurred, is then found 20% of the distance from the ER347 toward the first layer
composition, or 4% of the distance from the ER347 toward the A516 composition.
To represent a nitrogen pickup that would drop the predicted FN from about 11 to
about 3.5, a vertical tie-line is drawn from the second layer composition without nitro-
gen pickup to a new second layer composition with nitrogen pickup.
A couple of points are worth noting. First, at 20% dilution, the first layer is predicted
to be borderline as regards whether or not martensite will form to any significant
extent, because it lies right on the edge of the gray-shaded martensite boundary in
Figure 1. The easiest way to verify that martensite formation is not significant is by a
transverse bend test. A bend test failure would indicate significant martensite forma-
tion. Higher dilution, such as the normal 30%, would clearly put the first layer across
the martensite boundary so that you could expect to fail the bend test in that case.
Figure 1WRC-1992 Diagram with Extended Axes and 1% Mn

Martensite Boundary Showing ER347 Filler Metal and First
and Second Layers Over A516-70 Base Metal
47
Second, both the first and second layers of weld metal, even if the nitrogen pickup
occurred, are below the dashed line that separates the region labeled FA from the
region labeled AF in the diagram. This means that both layers should be resistant to
hot cracking because they both solidify as primary ferrite. However, 347 type weld
metal seems to require greater FN than, for example, 308, to avoid microfissures (very
small hot cracks), other things being equal, as shown by Lundin et al. (Ref. 2). The
observations of Lundin et al. probably are the basis for your customers specification
of 6 FN minimum.
If, as I expect, nitrogen pickup is the reason for your unexpectedly low measured FN,
the solution is to prevent the nitrogen pickup. There may be a fume exhaust device too
close to the arc, or a cooling fan nearby, that is disturbing the gas shielding. Another
possibility is that the long CTWD you mentioned is contributing to the disturbance of
the gas shielding. I suggest that you make sure that there is no air movement close to
the arc. I also suggest that you recess the contact tip behind the edge of the gas cup on
your welding torch so that the gas cup distance from the surface upon which welding
is being done is no more than 3/8 in. (10 mm). This may require use of a water-cooled
torch to prevent overheating of the gas cup. The recessed tip should allow you to con-
tinue with the long CTWD that is essential to your low dilution procedure without
allowing excessive nitrogen pickup. Then you should be able to achieve the required
minimum 6 FN with an ER347 wire calculated to produce 11 FN in the undiluted weld
metal.
References
1. Long, C. J., and DeLong, W. T. 1973. The ferrite content of austenitic stainless steel
weld metal. Welding Journal 52(7): 281-s to 297-s.
2. Lundin, C. D., DeLong, W. T., and Spond, D. F. 1975. Ferrite-fissuring relationship
in austenitic stainless steel weld metals. Welding Journal 54(8): 241-s to 246-s.
1.35 Use of 312 to Weld 330?

We are fabricating heat treatment baskets of Type 330 stainless steel.
? Until now, we have always used E330-15 electrodes or ER330 rods and
wires. We sometimes experience hot cracking problems (centerline cracks and/or
crater cracks) during welding. It was suggested that we substitute 312 filler
metal. Is that a good substitute?
January 2006
Type 330 is variously described as an austenitic stainless steel or as a nickel-based

alloy, depending upon how one places the demarcation between stainless steels and
nickel-based alloys. Since it contains less than 50% iron, ASTM classifies the base
metal with nickel-based alloys, but because it contains more iron (about 45%) than
nickel (about 35%), AWS classifies its nearly matching filler metal with stainless
steels. The alloy provides resistance to carburization and oxidation at temperatures
up to 2200F (1200C), as well as resistance to thermal shock due to temperature
cycling. These properties make it an attractive and effective alloy for applications
48
such as heat treating baskets, heat treatment furnace internals, furnace muffles, and
the like.
Because of the high nickel content, no ferrite is possible in weld metal from any nearly
matching filler metal, which accounts for the tendency toward hot cracking that you
mention. Table 1 lists the composition of 330 base metal along with that of 330 filler
metals and 312 filler metals.
The first thing to be noted from Table 1 is that 312 filler metal is a significantly differ-
ent alloy than 330. Type 312 is much higher in chromium (Cr) and much lower in
nickel (Ni) than is 330. As a result, the solidification modes of the two alloys are mark-
edly different. Type 330 solidifies as primary austenite, while 312 solidifies as pri-
mary ferrite. Type 312 is designed to provide primary ferrite solidification mode even
when diluted with high-carbon or high-nickel base metals. The primary ferrite mode
of solidification is remarkably resistant to hot cracking (solidification cracking), while
Table 1Compositions of Type 330 Base Metal,

330 Filler Metals, and Type 312 Filler Metal
Composition (wt-%)
Alloy or UNS
Filler Metal Number C Mn P S Si Cr Ni Mo Cu
ASTM B536 N08330 0.08 2.00 0.03 0.03 0.75 17.0 34.0
330* max. max. max. max. to to to
1.00 20.0 37.0
AWS A5.4 W88331 0.18 1.0 0.04 0.03 0.90 14.0 33.0 0.75 0.75
E330-XX to to max. max. max. to to max. max.
0.25 2.5 17.0 37.0
RA330-04-15 W88334 0.18 4.25 0.03 0.02 0.7 17.0 33.0 0.7 0.5
to to max. max. to to to max. max.
0.29 6.5 1.3 20.0 37.0
AWS A5.9 N08331 0.18 1.0 0.03 0.03 0.30 15.0 34.0 0.75 0.75
ER330 to to max. max. to to to max. max.
0.25 2.5 0.65 17.0 37.0
RA330-04 N08334 0.18 4.25 0.02 0.02 0.65 17.0 33.0 0.7 0.5
to to 5 max. to to to max. max.
0.29 6.5 max. 1.3 20.0 37.0
AWS A5.4 W31310 0.15 0.5 0.04 0.03 0.90 28.0 8.0 0.75 0.75
E312-XX max. to max. max. max. to to max. max.
2.5 32.0 10.5
AWS A5.9 S31380 0.15 1.0 0.03 0.03 0.30 28.0 8.0 0.75 0.75
ER312 max. to max. max. to to to max. max.
2.5 0.65 32.0 10.5
*Pb = 0.005 max., Sn = 0.025 max.
49
the primary austenite mode of solidification tends to be prone to hot cracking, espe-
cially under conditions of high restraint. So, 312 often looks like an attractive alterna-
tive filler metal for a variety of fully austenitic stainless steels as well as for dissimilar
metal joints, but this is not always the case. It is rather easy to see that a single-pass
weld of Type 312 filler metal in Type 330 base metal, with normal 30% dilution, will
have a composition of approximately 25%Cr, 17%Ni, 0.13%C. Due to the high nickel
and carbon, this composition will solidify as primary austenite and could be prone to
hot cracking. In the second and subsequent layers of weld metal, the weld will solidify
as primary ferrite. Thus, if a crack-free root pass can be obtained, the second and sub-
sequent passes should be crack resistant.
However, it is also necessary to consider the use of the weldment afterward. Here is
where concerns can arise with 312 filler metal. The heat treatment baskets you men-
tion are likely to see service at temperatures well above 1000F (530C). Sigma phase,
a brittle intermetallic compound of iron and chromium, forms from ferrite at tempera-
tures from around 1000F up to at least 1800F (980F), and can seriously embrittle
312 weld metal. At lower temperatures, a chromium-rich ferrite (commonly known as
alpha-prime) can precipitate within the ferrite and also embrittle the alloy. Both of
these effects would become of concern in a multiple-pass weld due to ferrite formation
in the second and subsequent layers. Type 330 stainless steel is considered to be
immune to embrittlement due to sigma phase formation as well as to alpha-prime
formation.
Finally, there is the issue of compatibility with the service environment. Type 330 is
often chosen for its resistance to carburizing environments used in heat treatment
atmospheres as well as for its resistance to the various metallurgical changes at ele-
vated temperatures that cause embrittlement. This resistance originates in its high-
nickel and comparatively low-chromium composition. Type 312 weld metal, even
diluted in a single-pass weld, will not match this resistance. It will be much more
prone to carburization than the 330 base metal due to the higher chromium, lower
nickel contents of the 312.
I do not think that 312 is an appropriate filler metal for welding Type 330 base metal
for heat treatment baskets because the root pass weld with 312 filler metal will not
solidify as primary ferrite; because subsequent passes, if any, will transform in large
part to sigma phase at anticipated service temperatures; and because of the mismatch
in carburization resistance.
There is an alternative with suitable properties and better hot cracking resistance
than the standard AWS Type 330 filler metals. This is the RA330-04 type filler metals,
indicated in Table 1 by UNS W88334 (DC-lime type covered electrodes) and N08334
(bare wire). Although the patents have long expired, so far as I know they are only
sold by Rolled Alloys in Temperance, Mich., and they are not classified by AWS nor by
any other organization. They solidify as primary austenite, so some tendency toward
hot cracking exists, but it is mitigated by the addition of more than 4% Mn to the filler
metal.
As with any fully austenitic stainless steel, in fusion welding it is advisable to weld
ugly. That means weld with no preheat and minimize interpass temperature, make
small convex weld beads, and overfill craters to make a visible lump. In general, weld-
ing with SMAW covered electrodes is more crack-resistant than GMAW. All of these
steps serve to lessen hot cracking tendencies.
50
1.36 Differences in Diagram Predictions for

Ferrite? (Old Specifications were Based
on DeLong, and Now People Recommend
WRC-1992)
For a great many years, our purchase specifications for common stainless
? steel bare wires such as ER308LSi and ER316LSi for GMAW or ER308L
and ER316L for SAW have required 8 to 15 Ferrite Number (FN) calculated by
diagram. We always referred to the DeLong Diagram, as that was included in
the ASME Code, Section III, Division 1, as Figure NB-2433.1-1.
We hadnt been paying much attention, but apparently that figure was changed
to the WRC-1992 Diagram some time ago. We now feel we should modernize by
referring to the newer diagram, but we wonder whether the calculated FNs will
change.
Should we make any changes to the FN requirements in our purchase specification?
May 2006
Actually, the Figure NB-2433.1-1 was changed from the DeLong Diagram to the WRC-
1992 Diagram in the 1994 Winter Addendum to the ASME Code. So you are more
than ten years behind. The change was made because it was shown, by comparing
more than 200 measured Ferrite Numbers (FNs) vs. calculated FNs, that the WRC-
1992 Diagram produced predictions consistently closer to the measured results, with
a scatter band half as wide as that obtained with the same data using the DeLong
Diagram. In particular, it was noted that the FN predictions of the two diagrams were
closer together when the alloy composition was lean than when the alloy composition
was richer.
Keep in mind, however, that predicting ferrite in weld metal has a lot in common with
predicting weather. We all admit to a degree of uncertainty in both activities.
There is no simple answer to your question. One way to approach it is to pick bare
wire compositions that produce FN predictions within your FN range according to the
DeLong Diagram, then see what happens to the FN predictions when they are
changed to the WRC-1992 Diagram.
Bare wires can be produced with two silicon levels for the most part, the normal
range of 0.30 to 0.65% and the hi sil range of 0.65 to 1.00%.
Usual practice is to use normal silicon for SAW and hi sil for GMAW. Ill consider
both cases. Ive arbitrarily chosen 10 FN by DeLong as the comparison point for the
hypothetical compositions, and adjusted the nickel and chromium contents to remain
at 10 FN for all alloys chosen.
Table 1 was constructed by arbitrarily fixing several of the chemical composition vari-
ables of all wires at values commonly found, and then manipulating the remaining
composition variables within the allowable ranges of the AWS A5.9 specification. The
fixed composition variables for all hypothetical wires are 0.02%C, 1.2%Mn, 0.2%Cu,
and 0.06%N.
51
Table 1Compositions for 10 FN Calculated

According to the DeLong Diagram
Composition (%) DeLong Diagram WRC-1992 Diagram
Alloy Si Cr Ni Mo CReq Nieq FN CReq Nieq FN
ER308L 0.4 19.60 9.55 0.2 20.4 12.6 10.0 19.8 11.5 10.1
ER308L 0.4 20.61 10.90 0.2 21.4 13.9 10.0 20.8 12.8 9.1
ER316L 0.4 18.46 11.10 2.5 21.6 14.1 10.0 21.0 13.1 8.9
ER316L 0.4 19.90 13.00 2.5 23.0 16.0 10.0 22.4 14.9 7.8
ER309L 0.4 22.97 14.03 0.2 23.8 17.0 10.0 23.2 16.0 7.3
ER317L 0.4 18.96 13.10 3.5 23.1 16.1 10.0 22.5 15.1 7.7
ER317L 0.4 20.33 14.90 3.5 24.5 17.9 10.0 23.8 16.9 7.0
ER308LSi 0.8 19.50 10.24 0.2 20.9 13.2 10.0 19.7 12.2 7.0
ER308LSi 0.8 20.07 11.00 0.2 21.5 14.0 10.0 20.3 12.9 6.6
ER316LSi 0.8 18.10 11.45 2.5 21.8 14.4 10.0 20.6 13.4 6.4
ER316LSi 0.8 19.90 13.85 2.5 23.6 16.9 10.0 22.4 15.8 5.4
ER309LSi 0.8 23.00 14.62 0.0 24.2 17.6 10.0 23.0 16.6 5.1
Compositions at the lean end of the AWS classification range and at the rich end were
selected for all alloys except ER309L and ER309LSi to illustrate the trends. In the
cases of ER309L and ER309LSi, it is necessary to raise the nickel higher than the
specification allows, even with the Cr at the bare minimum of the specification, in
order to force the FN calculated by the DeLong Diagram down to the arbitrarily chosen
10 FN. In the real world, ER309L and ER309LSi tend to be produced with higher
nitrogen than the arbitrarily chosen 0.06% in order to manipulate the calculated FN
of the wire while staying within the AWS A5.9 composition limits.
Table 1 includes the calculated chromium and nickel equivalents, and calculated FN,
according to both the DeLong Diagram and the WRC-1992 Diagram.
For the lean ER308L composition in Table 1, the FN calculated by the WRC-1992 Dia-
gram is almost exactly the same as that calculated by the DeLong Diagram. However,
as the alloy content increases, the WRC-1992 Diagram tends to predict lower FN than
does the DeLong Diagram, and this tendency increases with increasing alloy content.
It is illustrative to plot the FN calculated according to the WRC-1992 Diagram vs. the
WRC-1992 chromium equivalent. This is done in Figure 1 as two separate trend lines.
One trend line is for the normal silicon compositions, and the other trend line is for
the hi sil compositions. This is done to illustrate the point that the DeLong Diagram
treats silicon as a ferrite-promoting element, while additional data used in developing
52
Figure 110 FN from the DeLong Diagram Transferred

to the WRC-1992 Diagram as a Function of Alloy Content
the WRC-1992 Diagram led to the conclusion that silicon is not a ferrite-promoting
element, at least up to 1.2% or higher.
You will get slightly different results if you assume a different nitrogen content,
because the coefficient for nitrogen in the nickel equivalent of the DeLong Diagram is
greater than the coefficient for nitrogen in the WRC-1992 Diagram. But the general
trend will be similar to that shown here.
From Figure 1 it should be quite clear that transferring a calculated FN requirement

from the DeLong Diagram to the WRC-1992 Diagram is not a straightforward opera-
tion. For a given calculated FN, an adjustment is appropriate. That adjustment
depends upon the nominal alloy content of the particular filler metal classification.
For 308L, you probably need to make no adjustment in order to obtain the same
actual deposit FN you were getting previously. For 316L, you would get about the
same actual deposit FN by reducing the requirement for calculated FN according to
the WRC-1992 Diagram by about 2 FN from your requirement for calculated FN
according to the DeLong Diagram. And for 309L filler metal, you would get the same
actual deposit FN by reducing the requirement for calculated FN according to the
WRC-1992 Diagram by 3 to 5 FN from your requirement for calculated FN according
to the DeLong Diagram.
53
1.37 Copper Cracking Due to Backup Bar?

I have been told that copper causes cracking in stainless steel. Lately, I
? notice that the copper contents of both filler metals and base metals seem
to be rising, sometimes exceeding 0.25%. Is there an increased risk of cracking
with these higher-copper materials?
September 2006
In a word, no. You have been told, correctly, that copper can cause cracking in stain-
less steels, especially the austenitic grades like 304L and 316L. And there has been a
noticeable increase in the copper contents of both base metals and filler metals, due to
the use of scrap in production of stainless steels. But there is a lot more to the crack-
ing story.
As an alloy element in austenitic stainless steel, copper is harmless. Indeed, there are
austenitic stainless steels deliberately alloyed with copper, such as 904L (about 1.5%
Cu), that do not have cracking issues.
But, as a surface contaminant, copper can cause cracking in the weld heat-affected
zone (HAZ) of austenitic stainless steels. The usual scenario when this occurs is that
copper is rubbed on the stainless surface, as, for example, by sliding the stainless
against a copper chill bar on a seamer. Microscopic bits of copper rub off and adhere to
the surface of the stainless. After welding across the copper rub, cracks are found in
the HAZ, but there are no cracks in the weld metal itself. This occurs because copper
in the weld metal simply becomes a harmless alloy element. But the microscopic bits
of copper on the surface of the HAZ melt at about 1980F (1083C) or less, depending
upon the alloy elements in the copper, while 304L stainless melts over a temperature
range of about 2550 to 2640F (1400 to 1450C). In other words, there is a tempera-
ture interval between 1980 and 2550F in the HAZ where molten copper is in contact
with solid stainless. The molten copper wets very rapidly along the grain boundaries
of the HAZ as a liquid film. As the weld cools and shrinks, it imposes a tensile stress
which the copper-rich liquid film cannot withstand. Then cracks form along these
grain boundaries in the HAZ.
It is very simple to demonstrate this effect. I rubbed a copper contact tip on the sur-
face of a 304L stainless steel plate after belt sanding the surface to remove all surface
contaminants, then welded across the rub mark with a flux cored 308L stainless wire.
Figure 1 shows the copper rub mark and the weld.
Afterward, the weld was cross sectioned along the copper rub, polished, etched, and
examined metallographically. Figure 2 shows the cross section and cracking in the
HAZ. The cracks extend more than 0.01 in. (0.25 mm) below the plate surface. The
weld fusion zone can be identified at the left of Figure 2 by the presence of ferrite,
which is lacking in the HAZ.
Figure 3 shows a higher-magnification SEM image of a portion of a crack, along with a

corresponding map of the copper concentration. It is clear that there is copper along
the crack. Copper can be found all the way to the bottom of the cracks, showing that
the copper wets and flows along the grain boundaries of the 304L HAZ.
54
COPPER RUB
Figure 1FCAW 308L on 304L Figure 2HAZ Cracking in

Plate Rubbed with Copper 304L Beside FCA Weld
(A) Secondary Electron Scanning (B) Copper X-ray Intensity

Electron Microscope Image
The SEM work was performed by John McLane.
Figure 3HAZ Cracking in 304L Beside FCA Weld
So, it should be abundantly clear that the surface of austenitic stainless steels such as
304L and 316L should be protected against having copper rubbed on the surface.
Direct contact, such as with a chill bar or backup bar or alignment clamp, is accept-
able so long as rubbing is avoided. But rubbing should be diligently avoided. If a rub
mark is found on the stainless, it should be removed before welding near the point of
rubbing.
55
1.38 Does the Testing Temperature Affect FN

Measurements?
Does the temperature of the stainless steel weld metal have an affect on
? ferrite measurements? We are cladding tube-sheets with 309L stainless.
When we checked the Ferrite Number (FN) with a Fischer Feritscope1, cali-
brated according to AWS A4.2, while the tubesheet is at interpass temperature
(around 300F), we seem to measure a somewhat higher FN than we measured
in the same area after the tubesheet had cooled back to ambient temperature. Is
this a real effect?
January 2007
As a student at the University of Wisconsin some 40 years ago, I recall seeing a very
old (even at that time) tensile testing machine with the following statement embla-
zoned on the machine base: One test is worth a thousand expert opinions.
I didnt know the answer to your question, so I undertook a test.
I have three clad samples that were produced by strip cladding more than 20 years
ago. The cladding is over stainless, so there is no ferromagnetic substrate to consider.
The samples are used for checking calibration of my ferrite-measuring instruments.
The samples are approximately 5, 10, and 15 FN respectively, so they should cover the
range of Ferrite Numbers of most interest for cladding. A three-by-three grid is
marked on the surface of each sample to indicate the locations for nine individual
measurements. Then the average and the standard deviation of the nine measure-
ments on each sample are calculated.
For this test, a Fischer Feritscope Model MP-3 was used. First, the FN of each sam-
ple was measured at room temperatureabout 22C (73F). Second, each sample was
placed in a pan of boiling water and the FN was measured at 100C (212F). Third,
the samples were cooled back to room temperature and the FN of each was measured
again. Fourth, the samples were put into an oven for one hour at 177C (350F), and
the FN of each was measured at that temperature. Fifth, the samples were cooled
back to room temperature again and the FN of each sample was measured. Sixth, the
samples were put into an oven at 260C (500F) for one hour and the FN of each was
measured at that temperature. Seventh, the samples were cooled to room tempera-
ture again and the FN of each was measured. The average FN and standard deviation
for each sample are given in Table 1, numbered according to the sequence in which
they were run as described in this paragraph.
However, the room-temperature tests are all grouped together in the table so that the
trends in the test results are clear.
The Table 1 data indeed seem to show the trend that is mentioned in the question.
However, it is also appropriate to consider whether this trend is real or some sort of an
1. Feritscope is a registered trademark of the Helmut Fischer GmbH Institute for Electronics
and Metrology.
56
Table 1FN Measurements at Various Temperatures
FN
Measurement
Temperature Sample 2E Sample 4E Sample 5E
Test
Sequence Avg. Std. Avg. Std. Avg. Std.
C F Number FN Deviation FN Deviation FN Deviation
22 73 1 4.7 0.08 10.1 0.13 14.3 0.33
22 73 3 4.6 0.08 9.9 0.21 13.9 0.46
22 73 5 4.7 0.10 10.1 0.13 14.3 0.16
22 73 7 4.7 0.10 10.3 0.34 14.3 0.34
100 212 2 5.3 0.09 11.7 0.52 16.0 0.26
177 350 4 6.1 0.10 14.6 0.59 18.0 0.25
260 500 6 6.7 0.14 16.3 0.44 20.3 0.73
artifact. The Fischer Feritscope does not measure the force required to pull a stan-
dard magnet free from a sample, which is the basis of the AWS A4.2M:2006 (ISO
8249:2000 MOD), Standard Procedures for Calibrating Magnetic Instruments to Mea-
sure the Delta Ferrite Content of Austenitic and Duplex Ferritic-Austenitic Stainless
Steel Weld Metal, standard. Rather, the instrument emits a small electrical impulse
from the probe, allowing the probe to produce a signal related to the magnetic perme-
ability of the sample. Software within the instrument then evaluates the signal and
converts it to a FN value. So it is appropriate to consider whether the probe is affected
by the temperature of the sample in some fashion.
My telephone contact with the instruments manufacturer did not produce informa-
tion about the temperature response of the probe and the signal processing by the
instrument. They were unaware of any such effect.
To investigate further, a portion of the test was repeated, this time using a Magne-
Gage instrument, which uses a standard magnet and measures the force required to
pull the magnet free from the sample. This is the basic instrument of the AWS
A4.2M:2006 standard, although it is a laboratory instrument and not very well suited
to a shop environment. For this test, only the Sample 5E was used, and the measure-
ments were done first at room temperature, second immediately after withdrawing
the sample from the 177C (350F) furnace, and third after cooling back to room tem-
perature. The sample was placed on a 20-mm (3/4-in.)-thick stainless steel plate in the
furnace and under the Magne-Gage magnet, and the surface of the plate was covered
with insulation to retain heat during the hot sample measurements. The nine mea-
surements on the hot sample were completed within two minutes, so the temperature
of the sample did not fall significantly during measurement.
Table 2 presents the results of the Magne-Gage test. It can be seen that the room-
temperature Magne-Gage results agree quite well with the Feritscope results in
57
Table 2Magne-Gage Measurements on Sample 5E
Location FN at 22C (73F) FN at 177C FN at 22C (73F)

Number Before Heating (350F) After Cooling
1 13.8 14.6 13.7

2 14.0 14.9 13.9
3 13.9 14.9 14.0
4 13.7 14.8 13.7
5 14.1 15.1 14.0
6 13.8 14.8 14.0
7 13.7 14.5 13.8
8 13.7 14.5 13.8
9 13.7 14.6 13.8
Average 13.82 14.74 13.86
Std. Deviation 0.15 0.21 0.12
Table 1. The agreement is well within the expected scatter in results expected accord-
ing to AWS A4.2. However, the 177C (350F) results do not agree with the Ferit-
scope results at that temperature. A much smaller, but still statistically significant,
increase in measured FN of the hot sample is observed with the Magne-Gage mea-
surement as compared to the Feritscope measurements. A physical explanation for
this increase is not apparent.
It must be concluded, therefore, that the FN measured by the Feritscope Model MP-3
that I have is indeed affected by the temperature of the sample being measured.
Falsely high values are obtained when the test sample is hot. I would assume that the
FN measurements of your Feritscope are likely to be similarly affected, but there is
no assurance unless you conduct tests along the lines as described herein. And the
response of any other instrument, if used to measure FN at elevated temperature,
should be similarly examined before attaching any significance to the results obtained
at elevated temperature.
Finally, based on the results described herein, it seems inappropriate to draw conclu-
sions about meeting any FN requirements based upon measurements made at ele-
vated temperatures. To my knowledge, all FN specifications are based upon
measurements made at ambient temperature, and all correlations of weld metal prop-
erties with weld metal FN are made based on room temperature FN measurements.
Ferrite Number measurements should be made with this in mind.
Acknowledgment
Dr. Tom Siewert, U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology, Boulder, Colo.,
examined the early test results and made helpful suggestions.
58
1.39 Does the Testing Temperature Affect FN

Measurements?
Measuring Ferrite Number Follow-up
?
July 2007
The January 2007 column reported a reader finding what appeared to be high FN mea-
surements using a Fischer Feritscope, making the measurements while the weld metal
was still at about 300F (150C) as compared to measurements at room temperature. My
subsequent observations agreed. Michael Haller of Fischer Technology, manufacturer of the
Feritscope, provided the following commentary on that phenomenon, edited for brevity.
The probe of the Feritscope reacts to changes of temperature. In the case of complete
thermal equilibrium of probe and material (probe and material over a long time period
in a temperature-controlled cabinet), an apparent increase of the Ferrite Number of
approximately 1 to 1.5 FN occurs when the temperature increases from 20 to 60C
(68 to 140F)material of FN 5.0 with probe calibrated at 20C reads approximately
FN 6.0 when probe and material are at 60C.
The probe is not designed for use at higher temperatures. The probe will get damaged
and it will eventually lead to the destruction of the probe.
The actual problem at hand, however, is that the measurements are done with the
probe at room temperature on hot materials. The probe warms up uncontrolled and
unevenly, starting from the tip (probe pole) when placed on the sample. This changes
the inductance of the probe coils, among other things. This in turn causes faulty mea-
surements within the described range.
In summary, the probe should not be used at the described elevated temperatures,
because of a temperature-induced drift in the probe properties. Materials should
always be allowed to cool down sufficiently, in order to avoid false measurements. The
suggested temperature range of the probe should not be exceeded. The temperature
dependence observed is not due to material properties. Rather, they are probe related
when operated outside the specified temperature range.
1.40 What is Sugaring?

What happens to the root surface of a stainless steel pipe gas tungsten arc
? (GTA) weld when no backing gas is used? Welders commonly call it sugar-
ing, and I have also heard it referred to as carbide precipitation (for example,
in the June 2007 Welding Journal, page 59). If it is carbide precipitation, what is
the source of the carbon?
September 2007
The phenomenon of sugaring has nothing to do with carbide precipitation, and car-
bide precipitation has nothing to do with sugaring. I have no idea how this confusion
59
in terms got started, but it is nonsense. I plan to discuss carbide precipitation in a

future column.
Sugaring occurs when the root side of a stainless steel weld is exposed to air while it is
solidifying. The air severely oxidizes the root side surface. The heavy oxide produces a
shriveled surface appearance, which is the origin of the term sugaring. Figure 1
shows the root surfaces of two GTA welds in 1-3/4-in. (44-mm) OD by 0.075-in. (1.9-
mm) wall thickness 321 stainless tubing. The weld on the left was made with argon
backing (purging) gas, while the weld on the right was made with no backing gas.
After welding, each tube was cut beside the weld to allow the root surface to be seen. The
sugaring is evident on the surface of the weld on the right, made without backing gas.
A cross section was taken of each of these welds. Each was prepared for macro and
micro metallographic examinations. Figure 2 shows the cross sections. A smooth root
contour is readily visible for the weld made with backing gas, but the root contour of
the weld made without backing gas is rough and irregular.
Neither the optical microscope examination nor the scanning electron microscope
(SEM) examination revealed any evidence of carbide precipitation. Only the normal
TiC-type carbides, expected with Type 321 stainless steel, were observed scattered
Figure 1Root Surface Appearance of 321 Stainless Manual GTA Welds

Made with Backing Gas (left), and Without Backing Gas (right)
Figure 2Cross Sections of Manual GTA Welds Made with

Backing Gas (left), and Without Backing Gas (right)
60
Weld Metal
Oxide Layer
Bakelite Mounting Compound
Figure 3The Scanning Electron Figure 4Oxygen Map of the Same

Microscope (SEM) Secondary Weld Root Area as in Figure 3
Electron Image of 321 Weld High Oxygen is Indicated by the
Root Without Backing Gas Concentrated Yellow in the Image
throughout the microstructure of the weld metal, heat-affected zone (HAZ), and base
metal. However, the SEM clearly showed, along the root side surface, a heavy layer of
oxide covering the weld metal. Figure 3 shows the secondary electron image of the
cross section at the root surface. This layer can be seen in Figure 3 to be about 30
microns (a bit over 0.001 in.) thick.
In order to positively identify the oxide layer, chemical element mapping was done on
the same area as the secondary electron image of Figure 3. The map of oxygen distri-
bution is shown in Figure 4. There can be no doubt that the sugared surface is an
oxide layer. Further mapping showed that the oxide layer is rich in chromium and
manganese, and low in iron and nickel, as compared to the weld metal composition.
There is no carbon in this layer.
Although the sugaring does not consist of carbide precipitation, it is still detrimental to
corrosion resistance. The shriveled surface provides numerous crevices that can pro-
mote initiation of pitting in various service environments including water contaminated
with low levels of chlorides. In a tube of the size shown in Figure 1, there is no reason-
able method to remove the heavy oxide layer and smooth the shriveled surface contour.
It is far better to prevent its formation in the first place by proper use of backing gas.
Acknowledgments
Bill West prepared the sample welds shown in the figures, and John McLane con-
ducted the metallographic and SEM examinations.
1.41 What is Sensitization (Carbide Precipitation)?

What is sensitization in a stainless steel weld?
?
November 2007
61
Note: This is a follow-on to my September 2007 Stainless Q+A column that discusses
sugaring. Sensitization is entirely unrelated to sugaring, and it occurs in a different
region of the weldment.
Sensitization in a stainless steel weldment occurs in that part of the weld heat-
affected zone (HAZ) that is heated to a peak temperature of between about 900 and
1600F (480 to 870C) when there is enough carbon available to produce precipitation
of chromium-rich carbides along grain boundaries. Higher peak temperatures than
1600F either allow chromium to diffuse fast enough to keep up with the carbon in
forming carbides, or actually cause the carbides to dissolve. Peak temperatures below
about 900F dont allow enough carbon diffusion to form significant chromium car-
bides during welding. The carbides have the general formula M23C6, where M is any
metallic element, but chromium is by far the most concentrated metallic element in
the carbides. The carbon atom is a very small atom that can diffuse rapidly through
the stainless steel matrix to the grain boundaries, so that carbon from anywhere in a
grain can reach the grain boundary in this temperature range. But the chromium
atom is a large atom that diffuses slowly, so that only chromium from very close to the
grain boundary participates in formation of the carbides. Formation of the carbides
then tends to produce a chromium-depleted zone beside the grain boundary. This chro-
mium-depleted zone, if exposed to a corrosive medium, is preferentially attacked and
dissolved. The corrosion follows the chromium-depleted zones beside the grain bound-
aries and a continuous network of corrosion along grain boundaries causes grains to
separate from the weldment.
In order to illustrate sensitization, a 3/16-in. (4.8-mm) E309L-17 electrode was used to

produce a single bead-on-plate deposit on a 1/4-in. (6.4-mm) Type 304 stainless plate.
Most 304 stainless produced today can be dual classified as 304L as well. The impor-
tant feature of this 304 plate is that it is not dual classified as 304Lit actually con-
tains 0.066% carbon, double the 0.03% maximum allowed for 304L. At this carbon
level, the weld HAZ is easily sensitized by the bead-on-plate weld. After the weld was
deposited, the weldment was sectioned transverse to the welding direction. The cross
section was then polished and etched to reveal the chromium carbides along grain
boundaries in the HAZ.
Figure 1 shows the HAZ in the region that was heated by the weld to a temperature in
the sensitization range. Actually, the carbides have been almost entirely removed by
the etching process and only their original locations can be seen in either the optical
microscope, or the scanning electron microscope, as microscopic ditches along the aus-
tenite grain boundaries.
The damage that can be done to a weldment by exposure of the sensitized HAZ to even
a weak corrodent can be very severe. Figure 2 reproduces a frequently published
example of a cross section of a weld in a 304 stainless steel pipe that contained hot
dilute nitric acid. The dilute acid attacked the sensitized part of the HAZ, dissolving
areas around grain boundaries and causing the individual grains of austenite to
loosen and be carried off by the dilute acid. But the weld metal, base metal, and hot-
test part of the HAZ are unaffected by the dilute acid. If one looks carefully at Figure
2, one can see, along the corroded surface, individual grains that appear separated
from the HAZ in this picture but remain in place because they are still partially
attached to the HAZ below the visible surface. If the corrosion were allowed to con-
tinue, these grains too would detach and be carried away by the dilute acid.
62
Note: Chromium carbides are indicated by chains of dark particles along austenite grain boundaries.
Figure 1Sensitized HAZ of 304 Stainless Steel Plate
Note that the weld metal and the HAZ closest to the weld metal are unaffected, but the region of the
HAZ tha t rea ched p eak temperatures in the r ange of 90 0 to 160 0F (48 0 to 870 C) is severely
attacked. Photo from Welding Handbook, 8th Edition, Vol. 4, p. 273.
Figure 2Sensitized 304 Stainless Steel Pipe After Service in Dilute Nitric Acid
63
There are two main cures for sensitization. One is to choose a stabilized stainless
steel base metal, such as Types 321 or 347 stainless steel. These steels are stabilized
against chromium carbide precipitation by the addition of alloy elements that have a
much stronger tendency to form carbides than chromium has. Type 321 stainless con-
tains titanium as an alloying element for this purpose, and is otherwise identical in
composition to 304. Type 347 contains niobium (columbium) for this purpose and is
otherwise identical in composition to 304.
The other main cure, which is most commonly applied today, is to select a low-carbon
grade of stainless, such as 304L instead of 304, as the base metal. The low-carbon grades
are generally limited to 0.03% carbon maximum. At this low level, continuous networks
of carbides generally do not form during welding, so welding does not compromise the
corrosion resistance. Today, there is very little cost difference between 304 and 304L
stainless, while there is significant cost difference between 304 and 347 or 321 stainless.
There is a third cure for sensitization, which consists of a solution annealing heat
treatment after all welding is completed. However, this is costly, involves severe size
limitations, and introduces distortion and scaling issues, so it is seldom used.
It should be noted that, while it is possible to also produce chromium carbide precipi-
tation in multiple-pass weld metal by thermal cycles associated with subsequently
deposited weld metal, the ordinary stainless steel weld metals that are not low car-
bon, such as 308 and 316, are not as easily sensitized as their corresponding 304 and
316 base metals. The weld metals generally contain a small amount of ferrite in the
otherwise austenitic deposit. The ferrite is richer in chromium than the austenite
matrix, and chromium diffuses in ferrite on the order of one hundred times as rapidly as
it diffuses in austenite. Chromium carbides that form in ferrite-containing weld metal
tend to form at the ferrite-austenite interface, where the ferrite can easily pump
additional chromium to the precipitation area, thereby usually averting sensitization.
1.42 Weld 304L at 0F?

We need to make, by welding, some modifications to a 304L stainless steel
? tank that is in an environment where the ambient temperature is around
0F. Questions have been raised about the minimum preheat temperature
needed to avoid cracking. In the area where we need to weld, the wall thickness
is about 1/2 in. Would preheat to 32F be sufficient to avert cracking, or should
we preheat to 70F?
January 2008
Application of preheat before welding can have several functions. One is to dry the
surface. Surface moisture, whether in the form of liquid water, snow, ice, or frost,
decomposes in the arc into hydrogen and oxygen. Hydrocarbons (oil, grease, etc.) are
also potential contributors to hydrogen in the arc. The hydrogen dissolves in the liquid
weld metal where it has the possibility of creating mischief. There is an abrupt reduc-
tion in solubility of hydrogen in the weld metal when it transforms from the liquid
state to the solid state, which can produce porosity in the weld metal. This concern
64
applies to carbon steel, low-alloy steel, stainless steel, nickel-based alloys, aluminum
alloys, and a host of other metals.
Hydrogen in the weld metal can also remain in solution in the weld metal after it
freezes and can also diffuse into the weld heat-affected zone (HAZ). Metals with body-
centered cubic (BCC) crystal structure or body-centered tetragonal (BCT) crystal
structure can be severely embrittled by this hydrogen and may crack due to weld
residual stresses interacting with this diffusible hydrogen. Higher-strength material
tends to be more susceptible to this form of cracking. Martensite in steels is BCT and
is most susceptible to hydrogen-induced cracking (HIC), but ferrite and bainite are
BCC and can also be susceptible. Higher-carbon steels, low-alloy steels, and
martensitic stainless steels are all susceptible. Duplex stainless steels, consisting of
approximately equal amounts of ferrite and austenite, have also been shown to be sus-
ceptible to HIC when the ferrite content exceeds about 60 FN. However, austenitic
stainless steels, nickel-based alloys, and aluminum alloys have a face-centered cubic
(FCC) crystal structure that is virtually immune to HIC, at least at levels of hydrogen
that will not produce porosity. Type 304L stainless steel, and its matching 308L weld
metal, have predominantly FCC crystal structures. With ferrite content on the order
of 10 FN as might be found in 308L weld metal, HIC is unknown.
A second function of preheat is to reduce the cooling rate of alloys that transform from
austenite to ferrite, bainite, or martensite. A reduced cooling rate tends to produce
lower hardness, which is less susceptible to HIC. In the extreme, a preheat tempera-
ture higher than the martensite start temperature has been successfully used for
welding tool steels and martensitic steels like 420. Happily, 304L base metal and 308L
weld metal do not transform from austenite to any other crystal structure, except
under conditions of severe cold working or refrigeration to cryogenic temperatures
such as 320F (196C). Otherwise, 304L base metal and 308L weld metal are unaf-
fected by cooling rate as regards HIC.
A third function of preheat is to raise the temperature of the weldment above any duc-
tile-to-brittle fracture transition temperature (DBTT). This prevents fracture in the
presence of a flaw such as an incomplete fusion defect or a preexisting crack. Marten-
sitic steels may have a DBTT above normal room temperature, while many structural
steels have a DBTT below 0F (18C). But austenitic stainless steels like 304L and
308L weld metal do not generally have a definable DBTT. They are capable of ductile
fracture even at cryogenic temperatures. Brittle fracture is generally unknown in aus-
tenitic stainless steel base metal or weld metal.
A fourth function of preheat is to reduce residual stresses caused by welding. These
residual stresses arise because the weld metal and HAZ shrink due to thermal con-
traction during cooling. The colder base metal opposes this shrinkage and the result is
tensile residual stress in the weld metal and often in the HAZ. This tendency to
greater differential thermal contraction and correspondingly higher residual stresses
is greater when the temperature difference between the base metal mass and the
solidifying and cooling weld metal is greater. Preheat of the mass of the base metal
can reduce this differential thermal contraction. This has been used successfully for
welding martensitic stainless steels such as 420, where a preheat of 600F (315C)
reduces the temperature differential between the mass of base metal or previously
deposited weld metal and the newly deposited weld metal and thereby reduces resid-
ual stresses. For austenitic stainless steels like 308L weld metal, the important tem-
perature differential is that between about 1500F (815C), where the weld metal
65
develops appreciable yield strength, and the base metal preheat temperature. An
increase in base metal temperature from 0F (18C) to 70F (21C) amounts to a
reduction of less than 1% of the temperature differential between the base metal and
the weld metal when the weld metal starts to develop appreciable yield strength.
Accordingly, increasing the base metal temperature from 0 to 70F before welding
will have a negligible effect on residual stresses in a 304L weldment.
In summary, only one of the various reasons for preheating base metals before weld-
ing would generally be applicable to 304L stainless steel welding in your situation.
That reason is to help ensure dryness of the surface before welding, in order to avoid
porosity due to hydrogen. If you are careful to remove any moisture (water, ice, snow,
or frost) and hydrocarbons (oil, etc.) from the surface by means other than preheat,
and if you use low-hydrogen practices, you should eliminate any porosity due to hydro-
gen. Cracking should not be an issue so long as the filler metal is chosen to provide
some ferrite in the weld metal, and in any event is not going to be affected by preheat-
ing. I suggest that you be careful to maintain dry surfaces in the joint area and weld
the 304L without preheat.
Be aware that preheat to only 70F (21C) will not decompose or remove any hydro-
carbons, nor will it remove water. Also, be aware that preheat with an oxy-fuel torch
or air-fuel torch to a peak temperature lower than 212F (100C) can allow the com-
bustion products (water vapor) from the flame to condense on the base metal, and may
actually do more harm than good by promoting porosity. So if you do choose to preheat
to a low temperature like 70F, I suggest that you use infrared heaters or electric
resistance strip heaters, but not an oxyfuel or air-fuel torch.
1.43 Reheat Cracking in FCAW Welds of 308L Due

to Bi?
We fabricated a heavy-wall pressure vessel of 304L stainless for a seawater
? application. Out of concern for stress corrosion cracking in the seawater, we
performed a stress relief heat treatment at 800C (1475F) for 12 hours. After the
heat treatment, we found many cracks in the 308L welds made with all-position
flux cored electrodes around nozzles, but none in the 308L submerged arc (SA)
welds that assembled the main body of the vessel. We gouged out the cracked welds,
welded with FCAW again, inspected the welds thoroughly without finding any
cracks, then stress relieved again. After this second stress relief, we again found
extensive cracking in the FCAW deposits only. We are aware that carbide precipita-
tion and sigma phase precipitation can occur at the stress relief temperature. Since
the welds and base metal are low carbon and since both the SA and FCA welds
contained only about 8 to 10 FN before stress relief, we dont think that carbide
precipitation or sigma phase precipitation are the causes of the cracking. Some-
thing seems to be different about the FCAW welds. What else could be the cause?
March 2008
While it is true that a 12 hour stress relief at 800C (1475F) will produce both car-
bide precipitation and sigma phase precipitation in 308L weld metal, the damage to
66
properties in low-carbon weld metal at 8 to 10 FN is unlikely to be serious enough to

cause cracking. I believe you are correct to suspect that something is different about
the FCAW deposits.
To put things in perspective, it is useful to review briefly the history of development of
flux cored stainless electrodes. The first stainless steel electrodes for FCAW were
developed in the late 1950s. These were relatively large-diameter electrodes (3/32 in.
[2.4 mm] and larger), used mainly calcium fluoride (fluorspar) base or titanium diox-
ide (rutile) base slag systems, and were limited to welding in the flat and horizontal
positions. Although some were designed for gas shielded welding, the vast majority
were designed to be run without shielding gas. These self-shielded flux cored stainless
electrodes dominated the flux cored stainless electrode market throughout the 1960s
and 1970s. The self-shielded flux cored stainless electrodes to this day are limited to
the flat and horizontal positions, largely because the metal transfer is by a large drop-
let that is strongly affected by gravity.
In the late 1970s, smaller-diameter gas shielded flux cored stainless electrodes began
to appear in the market. Sizes of 1/16 in. (1.6 mm) were followed by even smaller
diameters. In contrast to the large droplet metal transfer with the self-shielded elec-
trodes, these electrodes produced a near spray transfer, especially in argon-CO2 gas
mixtures. Faster-freezing slag systems were developed that permit welding in the ver-
tical and overhead positions. And the Japanese introduced a slag system high in SiO2
that produces very attractive welding characteristics, slag detachment and weld sur-
face appearance with such electrodes. However, the Japanese development, as
described in the 1982 U.S. Patent No. 4,345,140, Composite Wire for Stainless Steel
Welding, granted to Godai et al., introduced the inclusion of a small amount of certain
low-melting oxides to obtain the attractive slag removal. This patent mentions lead
oxide, bismuth oxide, and antimony oxide as possibilities for obtaining this effect.
Variants on this patent were introduced by other electrode manufacturers, and the
industry seems to have standardized on the addition of small amounts of bismuth-
bearing compounds as the slag-removal additive. By about 1990, perhaps even earlier,
the usage of small-diameter gas-shielded flux cored stainless steel electrodes in the
United States had exceeded that of the larger-diameter self-shielded flux cored stain-
less steel electrodes. Today, the small-diameter gas shielded flux cored stainless elec-
trodes are by far the dominant stainless steel flux cored electrodes.
The vast majority of stainless steel weld deposits are put into service in the as-welded
condition and see service at temperatures below about 250C (480F). However, there
are certain notable exceptions, including casting repairs which are normally
annealed, and weldments in the power-generation and process industries which see
extended service at temperatures of 480C (900F) or higher. It is in these latter
weldments that bismuth (and other similar elements) create problems. Although it
may have been reported earlier in Japanese literature, perhaps the first publication of
elevated-temperature problems with these FCA weldments in the western literature
was by Nishiyama et al., Flux-Cored Wires for Stainless Steel Welding, in Welding in
the World, Vol. 36, pp. 103123, June 1995. This article describes premature creep
failures in such weldments at temperatures as low as 650C (1200F).
The report by Nishiyama triggered a number of other investigations of the behavior of
stainless steel FCAW deposits containing bismuth. On behalf of Commission IX of the
International Institute of Welding, Farrar et al. (Position Statement on the Effect of
Bismuth on the Elevated Temperature Properties of Flux Cored Stainless Steel Weld-
67
ments, Welding in the World, Vol. 45, N5/6, pp. 2531, 2001), summarized the reports
available as well as the results of a round-robin of bismuth measurement in stainless
steel FCAW deposits. They cited reports of reheat cracking at temperatures as low as
550C (1020F) in weldments containing approximately 200 ppm bismuth, the bis-
muth level that seems to be standard in such FCAW stainless steel electrodes. They
further noted that experience and experimental data are lacking for stainless steel
FCAW electrodes at temperatures below 1020F. They also noted that there are cer-
tain stainless steel FCAW electrodes formulated without bismuth (less than 20 ppm)
whose deposits do not exhibit reheat cracking or premature creep failure. Unfortu-
nately, this information has not been well publicized, although the American Petro-
leum Institute has incorporated this 20 ppm limit for bismuth in stainless steel FCAW
deposits in its Recommended Practice 582, Welding Guidelines for the Chemical, Oil
and Gas Industries.
Your experiences seem quite clearly to be cases of reheat cracking. I understand that
subsequent investigation has determined that the FCAW electrodes used did indeed
contain bismuth additions.
For stainless steel weldments being designed for high-temperature service or

intended to be given a PWHT, FCAW electrodes producing less than 20 ppm of bis-
muth in the deposit should be selected. Since electrode manufacturers do not gener-
ally publicize the bismuth level in their electrodes, I suggest that you contact a
technical representative of any prospective FCAW stainless steel electrode manufac-
turer who might be chosen to supply electrodes for high-temperature service, or for
PWHT. You should seek a supply of electrodes guaranteed to provide weld metal with
less than 20 ppm of bismuth (and similarly free of any other element that can cause
reheat cracking or premature creep failure).
There is no reason to impose this restriction on stainless steel FCAW electrodes that
are not to be used for high-temperature service or PWHT.
1.44 Root Pass Cracking in AL6XN Welded with

ERNiCrMo-3?
We are trying to fabricate a number of AL6XN vessels (3/8-in. wall thickness)
? using 1/16-in. Alloy 625 filler metal by submerged arc welding. This is the
recommended filler metal, but we are fairly often getting centerline cracks in the
root pass. When that happens, we have to gouge out the cracks and repair with
matching covered electrodes. This costs a lot of time and money. The covered elec-
trode repairs never crack. Then we can successfully finish the joint with sub-
merged arc. The welders suggest that we use covered electrodes for the root pass to
begin with, then finish with submerged arc. An entire root pass with covered elec-
trodes is expensive. What can we do to make successful submerged arc root passes?
July 2008
AL6XN is a trade name for the superaustenitic stainless steel whose composition is
given by UNS Number N08367. Alloy 625 is a common name given to the filler metal
68
classified in AWS A5.14 as ERNiCrMo-3 or in ISO 18274 as Ni 6625. The composition

ranges for the base metal (from ASTM A240) and filler metal are given in Table 1.
Note that, even though iron is the most prevalent element (about 48% Fe vs. about
25% Ni) in N08367, the UNS number system assigns a nickel-based alloy designation
(N prefix) to the alloy. Most of the world (including ASTM A240) considers N08367
to be a stainless steel. Also included in Table 1 is the composition range for the filler
metal commonly known as Alloy 22, AWS A5.14 Class ERNiCrMo-10 or ISO 18274
Class Ni 6022, and the composition range for the filler metal commonly known as
Alloy 276, AWS A5.14 Class ERNiCrMo-4 or ISO Class Ni 6276, for reasons that will
become clear later. Your selection of ERNiCrMo-3 filler metal for joining AL6XN fol-
lows the conventional wisdom with regard to filler metals for superaustenitic stain-
less steels. In order to obtain matching pitting resistance in the weld metal, it is
generally necessary to use nickel-based alloy filler metal that overmatches the molyb-
denum content of the base metal. ERNiCrMo-3 filler metal is almost certainly the low-
est cost and most readily available filler metal that meets this requirement.
The centerline cracks you are observing in the root pass are solidification cracks. They
occur when liquid films persist in the weld metal over an extended temperature range
while the weld is contracting during cooling. I believe the heart of your problem can be
summed up in two wordsdilution and niobium.
A pretty good rule of thumb in estimating resistance to solidification cracking is that
no niobium is good and a lot of niobium is good, but intermediate levels of niobium are
dangerous. That is where dilution enters the picture. Welding with covered electrodes
is pretty much limited to 30 to 35% dilution under most circumstances, so that the
root pass made with ENiCrMo-3 SMAW electrodes in AL6XN base metal will contain
more than 2% Nb, and will be resistant to solidification cracking. However, submerged
Table 1Composition Ranges for AL6XN and Alloys 625 and 22 Filler Metals
% % % % % % % % % % % % %
Alloy C Mn P S Si Cr Ni Mo N Cu Nb W Fe
AL6XN 0.030 2.00 0.040 0.030 1.00 20.0 23.5 6.0 0.18 0.75 Rem.
N08367 max. max. max. max. max. to to to to max.
22.0 25.5 7.0 0.25
Alloy 625 0.10 0.50 0.02 0.015 0.50 20.0 58.0 8.0 0.50 3.15 5.0
ERNi- max. max. max. max. max. to min. to max. to max.
CrMo-3 23.0 10.0 4.15
(Ni 6625)
Alloy 22 0.015 0.50 0.02 0.010 0.08 20.0 Rem. 12.5 0.50 2.5 2.0
ERNi- max. max. max. max. max. to to max. to to
CrMo-10 22.5 14.5 3.5 6.0
(Ni 6022)
Alloy 276 0.02 1.0 0.04 0.03 0.08 14.5 Rem. 15.0 0.50 3.0 4.0
ERNi- max. max. max. max. max. to to max. to to
CrMo-4 16.5 17.0 4.5 7.0
(Ni 6276)
69
arc welding often produces 40 to 50% dilution, or even more. Fifty-percent dilution
drops the root pass niobium content to about 1.5%, and that is dangerous as regards
solidification cracking. This problem is not unique to welding of 6% Mo superausten-
itic stainless steelsit is well known also in the welding of 9% Ni steels with ERNi-
CrMo-3 filler metal for liquid natural gas containment where root pass solidification
cracking tends to occur in submerged arc welds.
You can take steps in welding the root pass to limit dilution. Welding the root pass
with DCEN polarity instead of the more common DCEP polarity is a good way to limit
dilution, although it often produces a convex bead shape that some find objectionable.
Welding with longer electrode extension can reduce dilution, but it tends to have prob-
lems with consistent bead placement (wire wander). Reducing welding current (by
reducing wire feed speed) can also reduce dilution, but that reduces productivity as well.
Perhaps a better solution is to change filler metals to one that meets the overmatch-
ing molybdenum requirement but contains no niobium. The most common choice in
this regard is Alloy 22, AWS A5.14 Class ERNiCrMo-10 or ISO 18274 Class Ni 6022.
This filler metal, whose composition range is included in Table 1, is niobium-free.
Therefore, it tolerates a wide range of dilution possibilities in SAW with minimal risk
of solidification cracking. I assume that you have been using a high-basicity flux for
SAW, as these are the only flux types that work well with ERNiCrMo-3 filler metal. If
so, the same flux should work well with the ERNiCrMo-10 filler metalin fact, with-
out niobium in the filler metal, you are likely to encounter better slag removal than
you experienced with the ERNiCrMo-3 filler metal.
Alloy 276 (AWS A5.14 Class ERNiCrMo-4 or ISO 18274 Class Ni 6276) is also a possi-
ble selection for filler metal. It too is niobium-free, as can be seen in Table 1. Its weld-
ing characteristics are very similar to those of Alloy 22. Your choice between these two
filler metals, should you decide to follow the Nb-free approach, can be based on cost
and availability.
1.45 Small Cracks in Fully Austenitic Stainless

Bend Tests?
When we qualify stainless steel welds, we have to run transverse bend
? tests and sometimes longitudinal face bend and/or root bend tests. Some
filler metals, like 308L and 316L, routinely produce very clean bent test sur-
faces, but other filler metals, like 310 and 330, usually show small openings that
look like little cracks on the bent surface. Normally the bend test criteria allow
openings smaller than 1/8 in. (3.2 mm), and the openings are about half that
length or less, so the tests are considered successful. Nevertheless, these open-
ings concern us. What can you tell us about them?
November 2008
What you are experiencing with the observation of small openings on the bent surface
is another way of finding microfissures. In the discussion of linear porosity of 310
stainless welds in my March 2003 column, I noted that the aligned dye penetrant indi-
cations found on ground 310 stainless welds are evidence of microfissures. The ferrite
70
found in nominally austenitic weld metals like 308L and 316L generally eliminates
microfissures. But fully austenitic stainless steel weld metals such as 310, 330, and a
number of others, as well as nickel-based alloy weld metals which cannot contain fer-
rite, are prone to microfissures. Microfissures are a fact of life in these weld metals.
You can limit their size by using low heat input welding. You can reduce their number
by selecting higher-purity filler metal (low phosphorus and low sulfur). But, without
ferrite, it is virtually impossible to eliminate them altogether.
More than 30 years ago, Lundin et al. (Ref. 1) developed a variation of a longitudinal
face bend test that they termed a fissure bend test, as the best way of finding and
counting microfissures, and found minimum ferrite levels needed to eliminate
microfissures from various nominally austenitic stainless steel weld metals. In this
test, a longitudinal tensile strain was demonstrated to open microfissures and render
them easily visible. The curved surface of a bend test specimen doesnt photograph
very well, but the same effect can be achieved by limited straining of a longitudinal
flat tensile specimen. The surface of a longitudinal flat tensile specimen of 310 stain-
less steel shielded metal arc (SMA) weld metal is shown in Figure 1, where the tensile
test was interrupted after only 10% strain. Several microfissures are revealed, and
the centimeter rule beside the tensile specimen shows that the largest microfissures
are a bit less than 2 mm (0.080 in.) long. Note that the microfissures are mostly, but
not entirely, perpendicular to the length of the specimen (welding direction). The ten-
sile strain opens the microfissures, but does not make them propagate because these
weld metals are very tough and blunting of the microfissures occurs readily.
Microscopic examination usually shows that most microfissures form at the interface
between two or more weld beads, where the reheating of the later bead induces
microfissures in the previous bead. An example of this is shown in Figure 2.
In the study cited in Figure 2, Lundin and Cui examined corrosion, fatigue, and creep
properties of ferrite-free weld metal containing microfissures as compared to similar
Figure 1Shown is the Surface Figure 2Microfissures in 316H

of a Longitudinal Flat Tensile Shielded Metal Arc Weld Metal
Specimen of 310 Stainless Steel (Ref. 2). Photo courtesy of
Shielded Metal Arc Weld Metal C. D. Lundin, Y. Cui, and the
Revealing Several Microfissures Welding Research Council
Less than 2 mm (0.080 in.) Long
71
weld metal containing ferrite and therefore microfissure-free. They found minimal
effects of microfissures except for evidence that microfissures open to the exposed sur-
face tended to initiate pitting corrosion or reduce the critical pitting temperature.
The findings of the WRC study are reassuring because of the many weld metal compo-
sitions known to contain microfissures. All sorts of fully austenitic stainless steel and
nickel-based alloy weld metals containing microfissures are in use in industry, espe-
cially at high temperatures. And they perform well. I think it highly likely that, if the
procedure qualification tests of such weld metals failed to find microfissures, it is
mainly because most procedure qualification tests look at transverse weldment tests.
But, as noted by Lundin and Cui, cited above, longitudinal strain is the best way to
reveal microfissures. A longitudinal tensile test, a longitudinal face or root bend test,
or a fissure bend test has a much higher probability of revealing microfissures than
does a transverse tensile or bend test.
References
1. Lundin, C. D., DeLong, W. T., and Spond, D. F. 1975. Ferrite-fissuring relationship
in austenitic stainless steel weld metals. Welding Journal 54(8): 241-s to 246-s.
2. Lundin, C. D., and Cui, Y. 2006. Effect of microfissures on corrosion performance
and mechanical properties of austenitic stainless steel weld metals, WRC Bulletin
502, Welding Research Council, Shaker Heights, Ohio, www. forengineers.org.
1.46 Reheat Cracking at 900C in 321 Stainless?

We fabricated a large heat exchanger header from heavy-wall ASTM A358
? Type 321H stainless steel pipe and ASTM A182 Type 321H forgings, using
E347-16 covered electrodes. After welding, we performed a stabilization heat
treatment at 900C (1650F) for 4 h. After the heat treatment, we found cracks,
mostly close to the fusion boundary in the heavy-wall pipe. What happened? We
will have to repair the header and again perform the stabilization treatment.
What can we do differently to assure this cracking will not happen again?
November 2009
What you have experienced is commonly called reheat cracking or stress relief crack-
ing. It occurs fairly often in certain stainless steels containing titanium (Ti) or nio-
bium (Nb) for stabilization, especially around welds in heavily restrained and thick
sections. Probably the three best known alloys susceptible to this cracking are 321H,
347H, and Alloy 800H. Table 1 lists nominal compositions of these three alloys. The
phenomenon also is known to occur in the lower carbon versions of 321 and 347 stain-
less steels.
These alloys are intended for use at high temperatures, usually in the range of 500 to
750C (930 to 1380F). They derive their high creep strength at these service temper-
atures from a fine dispersion of Ti or Nb carbides. However, welding produces dissolu-
tion of these carbides in the hottest part of the heat-affected zone (HAZ), and a
72
Table 1Nominal Compositions of 321H, 347H, and 800H
Alloy %C % Mn % Si % Cr % Ni % Ti % Nb % Al
321H 0.07 1.0 0.4 18 10.5 0.5
347H 0.07 1.0 0.4 18 10.5 0.8
800H 0.07 1.0 0.4 21 32 0.5 0.4
subsequent weld pass can then precipitate chromium carbides on grain boundaries.
This results in a very thin weak zone along the grain boundaries where there are little
or no Ti or Nb carbides. The function of the stabilization heat treatment at 900C is to
dissolve the chromium (Cr) carbides and once again precipitate the Ti or Nb carbides.
In the early stages of the stabilization heat treatment, the zone beside the grain
boundaries where the Ti or Nb carbides dissolved is quite a bit weaker in creep than
the remainder of the grain, and creep takes place to relax the residual stresses due to
welding. The creep strain is concentrated in the thin zone along the grain boundary
that is initially free of Ti or Nb carbides, and that zone can fracture with very little
overall strain. That is considered to be the mechanism of the stress relief cracking or
reheat cracking you experienced. Figure 1 shows the results of this phenomenon in
the heat exchanger header. Crack locations are evident, mostly in the base metal very
near the fusion boundary, by the dye penetrant used to examine the weldment.
Figure 1Stress Relief Cracking in a

321 Stainless Steel Heat Exchanger Header
73
The phenomenon of stress relief cracking in stainless steels was reported at least
as long ago as the 1950s. A number of reviews of the literature on this subject have
been published. A recent one is that of Alfred Dhooge (Ref. 1). According to Dhooge,
the factors that affect stress relief cracking are chemical composition, welding prac-
tice, weld metal strength, base metal grain size, and postweld heat treatment. In your
situation, the chemical composition of the base metal is already fixed as 321H. The
welding practice includes section thickness and geometrical discontinuities such as
changes in section size that are largely dictated by the design of your weldment. It
also includes notches and undercut, which you can minimize. The weld metal strength
is largely determined by use of E347-16 electrodes. There may be some latitude open
to you in filler metal selection, but I expect that you have to meet the creep property
requirements of the base metal, so 347 filler metal seems to be the most appropriate
choice.
Base metal grain size is worthy of consideration. Cracking reported in the literature
seems to have been largely confined to base metals with coarse grain sizeASTM
Grain Size 3 or larger. Note that a larger grain size number indicates finer grain size.
Dhooge recommends grain size of ASTM 3.5 or finer for best resistance to stress relief
cracking. The efficacy of finer grain size seems to lie in spreading the creep strain that
occurs during stress relief heat treatment over more grain boundaries. For repair of
your current heat exchanger header, I expect you cant change the base metal grain
size. But for any future such fabrication, you would do well to specify finer grain size
in your purchase order for the steel. You will probably need to work with the steel sup-
plier to determine their capabilities for controlling the grain size, and you may have to
pay a premium price for finer grain size.
The last factor has to do with the postweld heat treatment. The stabilization at about
900C (1650F) is necessary for developing the optimum creep properties. However, it
is not necessary to go directly to that temperature for postweld heat treatment
(PWHT). Dhooge notes that some intermediate PWHT has been used successfully,
such as 850C (1560F). But perhaps more successful has been to go directly to a solu-
tion anneal at 1050C (1920F) or higher, then cool to 900C for stabilization (precipi-
tation of the Ti carbides in the 321H base metal and Nb carbides in the 347 weld
metal). Dhooge suggests slow heating up to 430C (805F), then rapid heating to
1050C to get through the temperature range around 900C, where reheat cracking
occurs, as quickly as possible. Dhooge does not state what rapid heating means, but
Messer et al. (Ref. 2) propose heating rates of 18 to 30C (32 to 54F) per min in 347
stainless steel weldments. Such heating rates may be difficult to achieve in a large
weldment going up to 1050C. Furthermore, distortion during annealing may pose
serious problems, and you may have to combat that.
References
1. Dhooge, A. 1998. Survey on reheat cracking in austenitic stainless steels and Ni-
base alloys. Welding in the World, Vol. 41, 206219, International Institute of
Welding, Paris, France.
2. Messer, B., Oprea, V., and Phillips, T. 2004. Optimized heat treatment of 347 type
stainless steel alloys for elevated temperature service to minimize cracking, Paper
No. 04640, Corrosion 2004, NACE International, Houston, Tex.
74
1.47 Pitting Corrosion in 304L Agricultural

Sprayer?
We produce agricultural sprayers of 304L stainless. They are made of two
? dished heads and a rolled and welded cylinder. The sprayers are used for
herbicides and insecticides, as well as for liquid fertilizer. Some have been
returned to us because of leaking. When we examined the leakers, we found that
the leakage was due to a number of pits, mainly in the welds and beside the
welds joining the top head to the cylinder. Should we change to a more expensive
base metal like 316L?
November 2010
Figure 1 shows an example of the inside surface of a leaking sprayer tank. A number
of pits are readily apparent, some in the weld and some in the cylinder just below the
weld joining it to the head. It can be seen that the weld is a partial penetration weld,
made from the outside of the cylinder, which is a major part of the pitting problem.
The lack of complete penetration provides a crevice, and 304L stainless steel is sus-
ceptible to crevice corrosion. Pitting actually starts in the root of this crevice. Rust
stains are apparent, trickling out of the crevice.
A second noteworthy point about the weld area is that there is clear evidence of heat
tint on the base metal surface beside the weld. This indicates that there was no back-
ing gas on the inside of the tank when the outside was welded. The heat tint is oxi-
dized metal that is more susceptible to pitting than is the clean base metal. The
pitting beside the weld is almost entirely within the heat tint area. Much of that pit-
Figure 1Interior Surface of Leaking Agricultural Sprayer
75
ting is also within the rust stains coming out of the crevice provided by the partial
penetration weld. Corrosion engineers describe rust on stainless steel as auto-cata-
lytic. This means that rust on the surface of the stainless promotes corrosion wher-
ever the rust deposits. The rust trickling from the initial pits in the crevice clings to
the heat tint beside the weld, which makes for particular susceptibility to pitting cor-
rosion in that area. It should be noted that there are no pits in the heat tint on the
head side of the joint, most likely because the rust trickling out of the crevice falls
downward along the cylinder wall, not upward to the head surface.
Given these observations, I dont think that changing to 316L will solve the pitting
problem. Under the present fabrication conditions, there will still be a crevice and
heat tint, and 316L is also susceptible to crevice corrosion which, I believe, triggers
the pitting both in the root of the partial penetration weld and in the heat tint area.
Rather, the first step in preventing the pitting is to eliminate the crevice. Change to a
complete penetration weld, or apply a seal weld to the inside of the tank to cover the
crevice produced by the partial penetration weld. Complete penetration can be
achieved by GTAW, by GMAW with a modern power source that senses the arc condi-
tions and adjusts the power supply output to prevent melt-through, or by keyhole
plasma arc welding (PAW). There are a number of manufacturers of GTAW torches
that can operate through a small opening in such a tank to make a seal weld from the
inside, with or without filler metal addition.
If you eliminate the crevice, you may eliminate the pitting problem. However, that is
not a sure bet. The heat tint on the surface exposed to the various corrosive chemicals
in the sprayers may still render the steel susceptible to pitting in those environments.
It may just take longer to initiate the pitting in the heat tint area if rust trickling from
the crevice is eliminated by eliminating the crevice. The heat tint can be prevented by
purging the inside of the tank, or at least the inside surface in the weld area, before
welding. The purge gas can be argon or nitrogen. These gases are equally effective for
this purpose, although it is advisable, with nitrogen purging, to use a tight root and
reduce the nitrogen purge flow rate during welding to prevent nitrogen from getting
into the arc on the outside of the tank. See the July 2000 Stainless Q&A column for a
more complete discussion of nitrogen as a purging gas.
Alternatively, if you do not want to provide a backing or purge gas to the inside of the
tank, or consider it impractical in your manufacturing operation, you should consider
removing the heat tint by pickling the inside of the tank. A typical pickling solution is
a mixture of 20% nitric acid, 2% hydrofluoric acid, in water (see ASTM A380). About
30 min exposure to this solution will dissolve a superficial layer of stainless steel
under the heat tint so that the oxides comprising the heat tint are released from the
surface of the steel. These oxides will then be carried away by the pickling bath and/or
by the following water rinse. The downside to pickling the inside of the tank is that it
is eventually necessary to dispose of the spent pickling solution in an environmentally
acceptable manner, which may be costly. If you consider this approach, you should
check with the local environmental agency to determine what is required.
Another possibility for removal of the heat tint is to introduce an abrasive grit to the
inside of the tank and roll the tank for a period of time. This will require some experi-
mentation to determine the most effective abrasion procedure. And, typically, abra-
sion is not as effective as pickling in terms of maximizing pitting resistance of the
weld area.
76
A word of caution: Removing, or preventing formation of, the heat tint, without elimi-
nating the crevice, will probably not improve the pitting resistance. The crevice,
formed by the partial penetration weld root, is by far the most important factor that
needs to be addressed.
1.48 Solidification Cracking in E310-15 Fillet

Welds?
We have a contract that requires us to produce a number of complete joint
? penetration fillet welds in 1/2-in.-thick 310 stainless steel plates. We first
tried 0.045-in. flux cored E310T0-1 electrodes with CO2 shielding gas, but the welds
continually contained severe centerline cracking. After several attempts to put in
the root pass failed, we tried E310-16 covered electrodes. Now we were able to put in
the root pass with 3/32-in. electrodes, but attempts to complete the joints with 1/8-
in. electrodes again resulted in centerline cracking. If we have to complete the joints
with 3/32-in. electrodes, the time involved will be prohibitive. What can we do?
January 2011
The nominal composition of 310 weld metal is 25% Cr, 20% Ni. The root of the problem
is that this 310 weld metal (and base metal) composition is fully austenitic. Because it
solidifies as 100% austenite, it is inherently susceptible to centerline solidification
cracking. But susceptible does not mean that cracking is unavoidable.
There are several factors that can mitigate the tendency for cracking. One is to reduce
restraint, but your restraint situation is governed by the requirement for complete
joint penetration and the 1/2-in. thickness. Partial joint penetration may provide some
reduction in the cracking tendency, and you could explore whether complete joint pen-
etration is really required by your customer.
You have already discovered that small-diameter electrodes (low heat input) provide
some relief from the cracking tendency. But there are at least three other things you
can do to improve cracking resistance. Shielded metal arc welding (SMAW) with cov-
ered electrodes is well known as a way to mitigate solidification cracking tendencies.
The E310-15 classification is better in this respect than the E310-16 that you have
used.
The -15 coating type, normally formulated with large quantities of the minerals fluor-
spar (CaF2) and marble (CaCO3), produces metallurgically cleaner weld metal than
the -16 coating type, normally formulated with large quantities of the mineral rutile
(TiO2). Both CaF2 and CaO are metallurgically basic slag components, while TiO2 is
metallurgically acidic.
In addition, the -15 coating tends to produce convex bead profiles that are inherently
more resistant to solidification cracking than the flat to slightly concave bead profile
of the -16 coating. The convex shape of the -15 coating acts somewhat like the riser in
a casting that supplies additional liquid metal to the solidifying weld centerline. It
also produces a thicker weld throat than the -16 coating, which helps resist solidifica-
tion cracking.
77
The -15 coating type has become largely the forgotten man among filler metal pro-
ducers and fabricators. I think this is in part due to the tendency for a convex bead
shape that welders think is ugly; however, this ugly bead shape is actually beautiful
when there is a tendency for solidification cracking. It is in part also due to the
harsher arc sound and more globular metal transfer that the -15 coating produces, along
with coarser surface ripple and more spatter, than the -16 coating tends to produce.
Furthermore, the -15 coating type is generally limited to use with direct current elec-
trode positive (DCEP) current, while the -16 coating type is equally usable with AC as
well as with DCEP. The only welders who prefer the -15 coating type are pipe welders
because the -15 coating type generally permits welding uphill without weaving. You
will have to search for suppliers of E310-15 electrodes because many electrode produc-
ers do not produce this classification.
The second thing you can do, if you have the luxury of choosing from among more than
one lot of electrodes, is to select from among the available lots those with the lowest
total of sulfur and phosphorus. These two elements are notorious for their tendency to
encourage solidification cracking in fully austenitic stainless steel weld metals.
Normally, low sulfur is easy to achieve in stainless steel weld metal because modern
steel-making methods like argon-oxygen decarburization (AOD) tend to remove sulfur
from the liquid metal. But low phosphorus is much more problematic because these
same steel-making methods tend to not remove phosphorus. The AWS A5.4 specifica-
tion (Ref. 1) sets maximum allowable sulfur and phosphorus at 0.03% each, or a total
of 0.06% (actually 0.07% with rounding off rules applied to each element individually).
However, experience teaches us that limiting the total P+S to 0.025%, or even less,
produces much better resistance to solidification cracking in fully austenitic stainless
steel weld metal.
The third thing you can do, again if you have the luxury of choosing from among more
than one lot of electrodes, is to select from among these lots those with carbon content
in the range of 0.08 to 0.15%.
Many technical reports from the BC (before computers) era tend to be overlooked now-
adays. A report by Campbell and Thomas (Ref. 2), published in 1946, looks at a num-
ber of composition factors in 310 weld metal and comes to the above conclusions about
the -15 coating type vs. the -16 coating type, about low sulfur and phosphorus, and
about an optimum carbon range. You would do well to examine that report.
You should not be restricted to the 3/32-in. (2.4-mm) electrode diameter to successfully
produce the complete joint penetration fillet welds in 310 stainless steel. You should
be able to use at least the 1/8-in. (3.2-mm) and 5/32-in. (4.0-mm) sizes without solidifi-
cation cracking issues if you follow the above suggestions. It will be essential to
restrict welding to stringer beads, and to fill craters before breaking the arc, for opti-
mum resistance to solidification cracking.
References
1. A5.4/A5.4M:2006, Specification for Stainless Steel Electrodes for Shielded Metal

Arc Welding. American Welding Society. Miami, Fla.
2. Campbell, H. C., and Thomas, R. D. Jr. 1946. The effect of alloying elements on the
tensile properties of 25-20 weld metal. Welding Journal 25(11): 760-s to 768-s.
78
1.49 Solidification Cracking Resistance with

Higher Mn 25-20 Type Electrodes?
Two readers, one from England and one from India, provided essentially the
? same comment to the January 2011 Stainless Q&A column. Both noted that,
while AWS limits manganese in the 310 composition to 2.5% maximum, various
international standards permit considerably more Mn in this type of composition
than do the AWS standards. This higher Mn content makes the fully austenitic weld
metal more resistant to solidification cracking. Then it may not be necessary to
replace E310-16 electrodes, which are more welder-friendly, with E310-15 electrodes
for a highly restrained complete joint penetration fillet weld in 310 base metal.
March 2011
The ability of manganese to enhance solidification cracking resistance in fully austen-

itic stainless steel weld metal is fairly well known. European and other standards
have, for many years, permitted more than 2.5% Mn in 310-type weld metal deposits.
EN 1600:1997 is the European standard currently addressing stainless steel covered
electrodes. In 2003, a revised ISO 3581 was published as a cohabitation standard
(European classifications and classifications used by countries around the Pacific Rim
including AWS, Japanese, Canadian, and Australian classifications, existing side by
side). In this system, ISO 3581-A classifies products under the European designation
system, while ISO 3581-B classifies products under designation systems used in
Pacific Rim countries. An amendment to ISO 3581 was published in January of this
year, and there is every reason to expect the amended standard will be adopted by the
European Union countries as EN ISO 3581 to replace EN 1600:1997.
At its September 2010 meeting, the AWS A5D Subcommittee on Stainless Steel Filler
Metals approved a motion that, after the currently underway revision of AWS A5.4 is
published, probably this year, the Subcommittee will undertake adoption of the ISO
3581 standard as an AWS standard to replace AWS A5.4. Completion of that action
may take a few years, but it complies with the policy of the AWS board of directors to
adopt ISO standards as AWS standards when the ISO standard is found to be suitable
for United States industry.
It is of interest to compare the composition and other requirements for AWS A5.4
E310-15 and E310-16 with those of the comparable compositions in the ISO 3581
standard. The composition requirements are compared in Table 1. It can easily be
seen that the composition requirements for E310-XX in AWS A5.4 and in ISO 3581-B
are identical except for the tramp elements in the Other column. Furthermore, there
is a great deal of overlap between E310-XX and E 25 20 X X X composition require-
ments. The most notable difference between E310-XX and E 25 20 X X X requirements
is that E310-XX is limited to 2.5% Mn maximum, while E 25 20 X X X is limited to
5.0% maximum. In commercial embodiments of E310-XX, the Mn is normally about
2%, in my experience, while in E 25 20 X X X, Mn is normally about 3.5%.
AWS A5.4 and ISO 3581 also contain usability requirements for these types of elec-
trodes. AWS A5.4 and ISO 3581-B use two digits, written as -XX above, to designate
usability, while ISO 3581-A uses three digits, written as X X X. The extra usability
79
Table 1Weld Metal Composition Requirements of AWS A5.4 and of

ISO 3581 for E310-XX and E 25 20 XX Stainless Steel Covered Electrodes
Chemical Composition (wt-%) single values are maxima

Electrode
Classification C Mn P S Si Cr Ni Mo Cu Other
AWS A5.4 0.08 1.0 25.0 20.0 0.75 0.75 0.75

E310-15 or to to to to
E310-16 0.20 2.5 0.03 0.03 0.75 28.0 22.5
ISO 3581-B 0.08 1.0 25.0 20.0 0.75 0.75 0.50

E310-15 or to to to
E310-16 0.20 2.5 0.03 0.03 0.75 28.0 22.5
ISO 3581-A 0.06 1.0 0.030 0.025 1.2 2.3 18.0 0.75 0.75 0.50
E 25 20 XXX to to to to
0.20 5.0 27.0 22.0
designator of ISO 3581-A, which is the second of the three designators, describes
nominal electrode efficiency which is the deposited weld metal weight divided by the
consumed core wire weight, expressed as a percent, and whether the electrode is
usable with AC current or not. This nominal electrode efficiency is of interest to
Europeans because electrodes are often sold by the number of electrodes in a package
instead of the weight of electrodes in a package as is commonly done in the United
States. These usability requirements are compared in Table 2. It can be seen that
usability requirements are essentially identical for the AWS A5.4 and ISO 3581-B
classifications, and the ISO 3581-A classifications can easily be chosen to match the
AWS A5.4 and ISO 3581-B classifications.
Lastly, AWS A5.4 and ISO 3581 contain requirements for mechanical properties of
deposited weld metal from these types of electrodes. These are compared in Table 3. It
can be noted that AWS A5.4 and ISO 3581-B do not include requirements for weld
metal yield strength of the E310-XX classification, but ISO 3581-A does include a
requirement for weld metal yield strength of E 25 20 X X X classification. The tensile
strength requirements are identical. The elongation requirements appear to be differ-
ent for AWS A5.4 E310-XX vs. ISO 3581-B E310-XX weld metal, but that is because
the gauge length-to-diameter ratios of the respective tensile specimens are different.
In fact, the requirements are essentially identical when the different tensile speci-
mens dimensions are taken into account. The elongation requirement for the ISO
3581-A E 25 20 X X X is a bit less than for the others, but still quite acceptable for
most engineering applications.
In conclusion, the ISO 3581-A classification E 25 20 R 1 2, or something similar in the
E 25 20 R X 2 classification types, where the X stands for other nominal electrode
efficiency than 105% maximum, is a viable alternative to the E310-15 electrode of
AWS A5.4 and ISO 3581-B. The rutile coating of the E 25 20 R X 2 classifications is more
welder-friendly than the basic coating of the E310-15, and the solidification cracking
resistance is better than that of the AWS A5.4 or ISO 3581-B E310-16 classification.
80
Table 2Usability Requirements of AWS A5.4 and ISO 3581-B

for E310-XX and of ISO 3581-A E 25 20 XXX
Stainless Steel Covered Electrodes
Nominal
Electrode Type of Electrode Welding
Classification Covering Efficiency (%) Current Position
AWS A5.4 Not Specified, Not Specified DC All Except

E310-15 Customarily Vertical Down
Basica
ISO 3581-B Basica Not Specified DC All Except
E310-15 Vertical Down
ISO 3581-A Basica 105 max. DC All Except
E 25 20 B 2 2b Vertical Down
AWS A5.4 Not Specified, Not Specified AC and DC All Except

E310-16 Customarily Vertical Down
Rutilec
ISO 3581-B Rutilec Not Specified AC and DC All Except
E310-16 Vertical Down
ISO 3581-A Rutilec 105 max. AC and DC All Except

E 25 20 R 1 2d Vertical Down
a. Basic means composed largely of CaCO3 and CaF2.
b. Other digits than the chosen 2 can be used to specify DC welding with different levels of nominal electrode
efficiency. The chosen 2 is most likely closest to E310-15 as manufactured in the United States.
c. Rutile means composed largely of TiO2.
d. Other digits than the chosen 1 can be used to specify AC and DC welding with different levels of nominal
electrode efficiency. The chosen 1 is most likely closest to E310-16 as manufactured in the USA.
Table 3Mechanical Property Requirements of AWS A5.4 and IS0 3581-B

for Weld Metal Deposited by E310-XX and of ISO 3581-A for Weld Metal
Deposited by E 25 20 X X X Stainless Steel Covered Electrodes
Tensile Strength Yield Strength

Electrode %
Classification ksi MPa ksi MPa Elongation
AWS A5.4 80 550 Not Not 30a

E310-XX Specified Specified
ISO 3581-B 80 550 Not Not 25b
E310-XX Specified Specified
ISO 3581-B 80 550 50 350 20b
E 25 20 X X X
a. Elongation is based upon a tensile specimen gauge length to diameter ratio of 4:1.
b. Elongation is based upon a tensile specimen gauge length to diameter ratio of 5:1.
81
1.50 Requiring Both Calculated and Measured FN

for Weld Metal?
We are being requested to supply E308H-16 electrodes with both a mea-
? sured (on a standard weld pad as given in AWS A5.4) Ferrite Number of 3
to 8 FN and a FN, calculated by the WRC-1992 Diagram as given in the ASME
Code, Section III, Division 1, Figure NB-2433.1-1, also in the range of 3 to 8 FN.
We are finding that a number of lots of electrodes do not satisfy both require-
ments. Is it reasonable to expect to satisfy both requirements?
July 2011
In a word, no. A measured Ferrite Number is reality. A calculated Ferrite Number is

merely a prediction, every bit analogous to a prediction of the weather. We should not
be surprised when either prediction is not quite right.
There is uncertainty or variability built into every prediction. In the case of FN pre-
dictions, uncertainty includes, but is not limited to, uncertainties in the predicting
diagram itself, variability in FN sample preparation (if you weld several test pads
from the same lot of electrodes, the average FN will vary somewhat from sample to
sample), and variability of chemical analysis.
The role of variability in chemical analysis is not well appreciated by those who pre-
dict FN using a constitution diagram. That variability includes biases within any sin-
gle laboratory, as well as variability among various laboratories performing chemical
analysis. No laboratory will get exactly the same results when it analyzes a given
sample a number of times. And when round-robins of chemical analyses are per-
formed, it is normally found that each individual participants data will have a certain
bias for each chemical element analyzed. The Schaeffler and DeLong diagrams were
constructed using chemical analysis data developed almost entirely within a single
laboratory in each case, so each of those diagrams includes the analytical bias of the
originating laboratory. The WRC-1992 Diagram, on the other hand, is based on pooled
data from a number of laboratories, so this diagram at least eliminates the single-lab bias
effect. But the WRC-1992 Diagrams predicting accuracy is still affected by the accuracy
of the chemical analyses used in developing the diagram, as well as by the accuracy of
the chemical analysis for the given sample for which a prediction of FN is desired.
Seven chemical elements are necessary to make a FN prediction with the WRC-1992
Diagram. These elements are carbon, chromium, nickel, molybdenum, niobium, cop-
per, and nitrogen. With uncertainty in each of these elements, it should not be surpris-
ing that there is uncertainty in FN prediction. The International Institute of Welding,
Commission II, has run a round-robin of FN measurement and prediction on five
stainless steel weld samples, including a E308H-16 deposit (Refs. 1, 2). Sixteen labo-
ratories around the world participated. Table 1 summarizes the observations of that
round-robin. It is quite clear that the measured results are much more reproducible
than the predictions of the WRC-1992 Diagram.
The predicting accuracy of the WRC-1988 Diagram, which is the precursor of the
WRC-1992 Diagram, was tested against the predicting accuracy of the older DeLong
diagram, by the Welding Research Council (Ref. 3). It should be noted that, prior to
82
Table 1IIW Commission II Round-Robin Results
Measured Result WRC-1992 Diagram Prediction
Average FN 4.7 4.1

Standard Deviation, FN 0.44 2.44
95% Confidence Interval, FN 3.85.6 0.09.0
Min. FN 3.8 1.4
Max. FN 5.5 11.2
1995, the DeLong diagram was the preferred method of predicting ferrite in the
ASME Code, and that diagram appeared in the Code as Figure NB-2433.1-1. A data-
base of some 200 compositions and measured Ferrite Numbers that was independent
of the database used in developing the diagram was used for this comparison, covering
the range of 0 to 18 FN. Figure 1 shows the error histogram obtained as a result of
that comparison. It can be seen that the center of the distribution of errors is closer to
zero for the WRC-1988 Diagram than it is for the DeLong diagram, and the spread of
Figure 1Error Histogram Comparing the Predicting Accuracy

of the WRC-1988 Diagram with that of the DeLong Diagram
83
errors for the WRC-1988 Diagram is about half of the spread of errors for the DeLong
diagram. It is noteworthy that the spread of errors for the WRC-1988 Diagram looks
virtually identical to the range of the 95% confidence interval observed in Table 1 for
predicted Ferrite Numbers, on the order of plus or minus 4 FN.
It should be noted that a neural network for predicting FN has also been proposed by
Vitek et al. (Refs. 47). Better predicting accuracy is claimed for the neural network
than for the WRC-1992 Diagram. However, the neural network includes assumptions
about levels of vanadium, titanium, and cobalt in the weld metals which, at least in
the writers opinion, are not justified. The interested reader can access the neural net-
work online at http://calculations.ewi.org/vjp/secure/FNPLots.asp.
This Web site allows readers to evaluate the predictions of the neural network for
themselves. However, in view of the observations above with regard to the ability to
accurately determine chemical analysis, better accuracy in FN prediction than that of
the WRC-1992 Diagram seems to the writer to be an unrealistic expectation.
Returning to the original question, requiring both a measured FN and a predicted FN

to be within a narrow range seems analogous to requiring both ones observation of
the current weather conditions and the weather forecast in the morning newspaper to
agree on dry conditions before deciding to mow the lawn today. An observation that
weather conditions are dry is alone sufficient for mowing the lawn, and a measured
FN which complies with a specified range is alone sufficient for demonstrating suit-
ability of a given filler metal for its intended application.
References
1. Farrar, J. C. M., and Zhang, Z. 2001. Preliminary summary report on round-robin

experimentFerrite measurement and prediction in real weldments. IIW
Document II-1440-01, International Institute of Welding, Paris.
2. Siewert, T. A., and Siewert, E. A. 2002. Statistical evaluation of a round-robin

experiment: uncertainties in ferrite measurement in weldments. IIW Document II-
1466-02, International Institute of Welding, Paris.
3. Kotecki, D. J. 1997. Ferrite determination in stainless steel weldsAdvances since

1974. Welding Journal 76(1): 24-s to 37-s.
4. Vitek, J. M., Iskander, Y. S., and Oblow, E. M. 2000. Improved ferrite number
prediction in stainless steel arc welds using artificial neural networksPart 1:
Neural network development. Welding Journal 79(2): 33-s to 40-s.
5. Vitek, J. M., Iskander, Y. S., and Oblow, E. M. 2000. Improved ferrite number
prediction in stainless steel arc welds using artificial neural networksPart 2:
Neural network results. Welding Journal 79(2): 41-s to 50-s.
6. Vitek, J. M., David, S. A., and Hinman, C. R. 2003. Improved ferrite number
prediction model that accounts for cooling rate effectsPart 1: Model development.
Welding Journal 82(1): 10-s to 17-s.
7. Vitek, J. M., David, S. A., and Hinman, C. R. 2003. Improved ferrite number
prediction model that accounts for cooling rate effectsPart 2: Model results.
Welding Journal 82(2): 43-s to 50-s.
84
1.51 8.2:1 Cr:Mo Ratio in 316 Weld Metal?

A Canadian reader inquired about Clause A7.21 in AWS A5.4/A5.4M:2006,
? Specification for Stainless Steel Electrodes for Shielded Metal Arc Welding.
The clause concerns E316-XX covered electrodes, but not E316L-XX covered elec-
trodes. The portion of the clause that is of interest states, Rapid corrosion of
Type 316 weld metal may occur when the following three factors coexist:
1. The presence of a continuous or semicontinuous network of ferrite in the weld
metal microstructure;
2. A composition of the weld metal giving a chromium-to-molybdenum ratio of
less than 8.2 to 1; and
3. Immersion of the weld metal in a corrosive medium.
Attempts to classify the media in which accelerated corrosion will take place by
attack on the ferrite phase have not been entirely successful. Strong oxidizing
and mildly reducing environments have been present where a number of corro-
sion failures were investigated and documented. The literature should be con-
sulted for the latest recommendations.
The readers question concerns the origin of the above statement and any sup-
porting data for the 8.2 to 1 chromium-to-molybdenum ratio.
September 2011
I did not know the answer, so I made some inquiries of very knowledgeable stainless
steel welding experts, but none of them knew either. Then, I consulted current and
prior editions of the AWS A5.9 and A5.22 specifications, in addition to prior editions of
A5.4. Interestingly enough, the same statement is made in regard to ER316 wires
(Clause A8.21 in AWS A5.9/A5.9M:2006, Specification for Bare Stainless Steel Weld-
ing Electrodes and Rods) but not in regard to ER316L. However, the statement is
absent from Clause A8.2.16 describing E316TX-X flux cored electrodes in AWS A5.22/
A5.22M:2010, Specification for Stainless Steel Flux Cored and Metal Cored Welding
Electrodes and Rods, although it is present in Clause A8.3.21 describing EC316 metal
cored electrodes in that same standard.
It is understandable that the statement is attached to the metal cored electrode

because the metal cored electrodes were only moved from the A5.9/A5.9M specifica-
tion to the A5.22/A5.22M specification in the 2010 edition, and all of the descriptions
for metal cored electrodes (which had been the same as for solid wires) were simply
transferred intact.
Following the trail in the AWS A5.4 specification, I found the statement in the 1992 edi-
tion (Clause A7.20) and in the 1981 edition (Clause A5.19). However, the statement is
not in the 1978 edition, nor in the 1969, 1962, 1955, 1948, nor the original 1946 editions.
The AWS A5D Subcommittee is responsible for the content of the filler metal specifi-
cations concerning stainless steels. So, the AWS A5D Subcommittee considered it
appropriate to add the statement to the A5.4 specification sometime between 1978
and 1981.
85
Following the trail in the AWS A5.9 specification, I found the statement in the 1993
edition (Clause A8.21), in the 1981 edition (Clause A5.18), in the 1977 edition (Clause
A5.13), and in the 1969 edition (Clause A1.14.1). However, the statement is absent
from the 1962 edition and from the 1953 edition (the original edition). It seems curi-
ous that the statement appears already in 1969 for bare wires, but not until 1981 for
covered electrodes.
I obtained the minutes of the AWS A5D Subcommittee meetings of March 1969 and
May 1968, but could not find any record of when the statement was approved by the
A5D Subcommittee.
The AWS staff secretary for the A5 Committee was unable to locate any other minutes
of the A5D Subcommittee from 1962 to 1968, so it seems likely that the subcommittee
did not meet for some years. Many of the members of the A5D Subcommittee in the
1960s are now deceased. The members I could locate, including Robert J. Christoffel,
chair of the AWS A5D Subcommittee in 1968, do not recall the origin of the statement.
I note that the last sentence of the clause in question is, The literature should be con-
sulted for the latest recommendations. I examined all issues of the Welding Journal
from present day back to 1940 without once finding any reference to the 8.2 to 1 chro-
mium-to-molybdenum ratio. In fact, there is very little information in the Welding
Journal concerning corrosion resistance of 316 weld metal. Two interesting papers
including information about corrosion of 316 weld metal both appeared in 1950. In the
January issue, pp. 13-s to 31-s, Anton (Tony) Schaeffler and R. David Thomas Jr.,
authored Corrosion of Molybdenum-Bearing Stainless-Steel Weld Metals, including
discussions by several other contributors.
Many of their weld metals were given a postweld heat treatment (PWHT) because
they were not low carbon, and the authors noted sigma phase precipitation in the fer-
rite as a result of the PWHT, with adverse effects on corrosion resistance. The low-
carbon version of the alloy, termed 316elc, was just appearing at that time and did
not suffer adverse effects on corrosion resistance from PWHT. But no chromium-to-
molybdenum ratio is mentioned.
In the August 1950 Welding Journal, pp. 361-s to 404-s, Helmut Thielsch provided an
extensive review of Alloying Elements in Chromium-Nickel Stainless Steels. The
section of that review concerned with molybdenum includes reference to the work of
Schaeffler and Thomas, as well as to that of a number of other researchers. Again,
adverse corrosion resistance effects in 316 weld metal are noted, but no chromium-to-
molybdenum ratio is mentioned.
So, it would appear that the origin of the statement concerning adverse corrosion
resistance of 316 weld metal with a chromium-to-molybdenum ratio less than 8.2 to 1
in the AWS A5.4 and A5.9 standards would have been data published between 1950
and 1969, but I have been unable to find it.
So, I turn this question back to my readers. Does anyone recall the origin of the state-
ment concerning adverse corrosion resistance in 316 weld metal when the chromium-
to-molybdenum ratio is less than 8.2 to 1? If so, can you cite the reference? I will let
everyone know what is uncovered, in a future column.
Follow-up: I have not yet received a response to the September 2011 question I could
not answer concerning the origin of the 8.2:1 minimum Cr:Mo ratio for 316 weld metal
that is given in the Annexes of the AWS A5.4 and A5.9 specifications for stainless
steel filler metals. Please contact me if you have some information on this.
86
1.52 Restraint and Stress-Corrosion Cracking in

Austenitic Stainless Steel Weldments?
In the September 2010 Stainless Q&A column, you proposed that the sug-
? gestion in AWS D1.6/D1.6M:2007, Clause 5.3.4, that stainless steels should
be welded with as little restraint as possible was an unnecessary restriction
for nominally austenitic stainless steels and their weld metals that normally
solidify as primary ferrite, such as 304L, 308L, 316L, and the like. The reason is
that these steels and their weld metals are virtually immune to hydrogen-
induced cracking and are highly resistant to solidification cracking. I understand
that, but these steels and weld metals are susceptible to stress corrosion crack-
ing (SCC). If a weldment of 304L or 316L is going into service where SCC is of
concern, would it not be prudent to return to the D1.6 suggestion to minimize
restraint in order to lessen SCC likelihood?
November 2011
AWS D1.6/D1.6M:2007, Structural Welding CodeStainless Steel, is written for appli-

cations where corrosion is not a primary concern. But lets look beyond D1.6 and con-
sider whether weld restraint is important when SCC is a possibility.
Stress corrosion cracking is a form of localized corrosion that can be very damaging to
austenitic stainless steels. Three factors seem necessary for it to occur: an aggressive
corrosion medium, rather high tensile stress at the exposed surface, and a susceptible
alloy. As it happens, austenitic stainless steels with rather modest nickel content
(around 7 to 15% Ni) seem to be most susceptible to SCC. This includes steels like
304L, 316L, 347, 321, and their matching weld metals including 308L. The aggressive
corrosion media usually is an aqueous solution containing chloride ions, although any
of the halogen element ions can produce SCC. Given these facts, once the base metal
is chosen, what we can influence in a given chloride-containing solution is the tensile
stress. So it might seem that minimizing weld restraint should be beneficial.
The local stress state at the exposed surface includes both applied stresses and resid-
ual stresses from welding, fitup, forming, etc. In many (probably the vast majority) of
the cases of SCC, it is the weld residual stresses that are the main contributors to the
cracking. These residual stresses arise when the weld metal and heat-affected zone
(HAZ) cool and contract. The surrounding base metal resists this contraction because
it is much cooler than the weld metal and HAZ. In the simple case of a single-pass
weld in a butt joint between two initially flat plates, the weld and HAZ contraction are
responsible for the well-known tendency for the unrestrained weldment to assume
something akin to the flatness of a potato chip when cooled. To achieve this potato
chip shape, tremendous residual stresses are necessary. You can also get an apprecia-
tion of the severity of these residual stresses by trying to use an abrasive saw to cut a
weldment in two from one edge perpendicular to the weld. As you cut away base metal
on only one side of the weld, you allow the tensile stresses along the weld length to try
to close the kerf. In my experience, the cut does not reach the weld because the resid-
ual stresses pinch the base metal into the blade and actually cause the saw to seize.
87
As long ago as 1944, Spraragen and Cordovi (Ref. 1) reviewed literature concerning
residual stresses in weldments. Their literature review indicated tensile residual
stresses approaching the yield strength in many unrestrained arc welds, especially at
the surface along the weld centerline. Much more recently, simulation and experimen-
tal data reported by Dong et al. (Ref. 2) likewise showed residual stress levels
approaching the yield strength in austenitic stainless steel pipe weldments.
Restraint may change the distribution of the residual stresses. Removal of the
restraint after welding may actually allow some relaxation of residual stresses. But
the core fact is that residual stresses approaching the yield stress are likely to be
found in any weldment of significant size in the as-welded condition. So, in the as-
welded condition, any austenitic stainless steel weldment in the common grades like
304L, 316L, and 347 is likely to be susceptible to SCC in an aqueous chloride environ-
ment. Minimizing restraint is unlikely to have any beneficial effect in this regard.
There are treatments that can be done to reduce residual stresses and thereby lessen
susceptibility to SCC. Postweld heat treatment can provide some stress relief. How-
ever, stress relaxation is slower in austenitic stainless steel than it is in carbon steel
because the austenitic stainless steel is stronger at elevated temperatures. Also, there
is some risk of sensitizing the steel and/or forming sigma phase where ferrite was. The
risk of sensitization is minimal when low-carbon grades of stainless steel base metal
and weld metal make up the weldment. But sigma phase can be more of a problem.
Both chromium carbides (which can cause sensitization) and sigma phase form in the
temperature range of about 1000 to 1650F (540 to 900C). This is also the tempera-
ture range in which thermal stress relief is most commonly done.
Peening of the weld can be used to induce compressive stresses at the exposed surface.
This can be very effective in mitigating SCC, but it is difficult to verify that the tensile
stresses have indeed been reduced or reversed. Peening is a bit of an art, and some
fabrication codes do not allow it for stainless steels. D1.6/D1.6M:2007 allows it with
approval of the engineer, but is more restrictive on root and cover passes than on the
interior passes of a multipass weld. And it is the root and cover passes that are
exposed and, therefore, are at risk for SCC.
Another possibility for residual stress relaxation is mechanical stress relief. This is
most easily done to pipe. The pipe can be internally pressurized to near yield stress,
which causes plastic deformation in the areas where there are already tensile residual
stresses. Then, when the internal pressure is removed, the entire weldment relaxes to
a much lower stress level. But, in general, mechanical stress relief is difficult to apply
and it is difficult to be certain that the desired effect has been achieved.
In conclusion, if SCC is a concern, I think austenitic stainless steel base metals like
304L or 316L are being misapplied. Rather than attempting somewhat uncertain
methods of reducing susceptibility to SCC in a common austenitic stainless steel weld-
ment such as 304L or 316L, I would suggest selecting a SCC-resistant base metal
such as a duplex stainless steel, with more-or-less matching duplex stainless steel
filler metal.
References
1. Spraragen, W., and Cordovi, M. A. 1944. Shrinkage stresses in welding. Welding

Journal 23(5): 209-s to 246-s.
88
2. Dong, Y., Hong, J. K., Tsai, C. L., and Dong, P. 1997. Finite element modeling of
residual stresses in austenitic stainless steel pipe girth welds. Welding Journal 76
(10): 442-s to 449-s.
1.53 16-8-2 Filler Metal to Weld 316H Stainless

Steel?
We have a customer who wants us to build a thin-wall (1/4-in.) vessel out of
? 316H to be used in service at 1000F. Apparently this is for a test that they
expect will run for five years. Of course theyre concerned with welding
consumables having 0.04 to 0.05% carbon and ferrite less than 5 FN, and sug-
gested we use 316Ti. To my knowledge, transferring Ti can be an issue, and Im
wondering if 318 would be a good choice.
March 2012
First of all, 316Ti is not a designation for an AWS-classified filler metal as either a
bare wire in AWS A5.9/A5.9M nor as a covered electrode in AWS A5.4/A5.4M. It is also
not a designation in the corresponding ISO 14343 or ISO 3581 standards, respectively.
It may be a designation indicating addition of titanium to a 316 composition, but I do not
know for sure to what your customer is referring. You can find Asian products identi-
fied as ER316Ti on the Internet, but there is no connection to AWS specifications.
On the other hand, 318 designates filler metal that is similar to 316 except that it has
an addition of niobium (Nb). Niobium is a stabilizing element, just like titanium. Both
alloy elements are used to prevent chromium carbide precipitation, and thereby pre-
vent sensitization.
However, it is time for a reality check: At 1000F (540C), the 316H base metal will
become completely sensitized regardless of the filler metal used. So there is no point
being concerned about sensitization in the filler metal. Furthermore, sensitization
is of no concern in high-temperature service. Sensitization is an issue in ambient-
temperature corrosion resistance, not in high-temperature service.
I would not recommend 318 filler metal with less than 5 FN because niobium
enhances susceptibility to solidification cracking at low ferrite levels. 316H filler
metal would be more resistant to solidification cracking at low FN than would be 318
filler metal. But there is a still better choice than 316H filler metal for service at
1000F, especially if you must have weld metal below 5 FN. That better choice is the
largely overlooked 16-8-2 composition, and, though it may take a bit of looking to find
a supplier, it is generally made with less than 5 FN. The 16-8-2 composition is highly
resistant to solidification cracking at very low ferrite content. Table 1 compares the
AWS composition limits for 316H, 318, and 16-8-2 filler metals as covered electrodes
and as bare wires.
It is noteworthy that the 16-8-2 composition is considerably lower in alloy content
than the 316H and 318 compositions. This is important for two reasons. The first is
89
Table 1316H, 318, and 16-8-2 Composition Limits
Chemical Composition, wt-% (Single value is a maximum.)

AWS
Standard Class C Mn P S Si Cr Ni Mo Cu Nb
E316H-XX 0.04 0.5 0.04 0.03 1.00 17.0 11.0 2.0 0.75
to to to to to
0.08 2.5 20.0 14.0 3.0
E318-XX 0.08 0.5 0.04 0.03 1.00 17.0 11.0 2.0 0.75 6%C
A5.4 to to to to to
2.5 20.0 14.0 3.0 1.00
E16-8-2-XX 0.10 0.5 0.03 0.03 0.60 14.5 7.5 1.0 0.75
to to to to
2.5 16.5 9.5 2.0
ER316H 0.04 1.0 0.03 0.03 0.30 18.0 11.0 2.0 0.75
to to to to to to
0.08 2.5 0.65 20.0 14.0 3.0
ER318 0.08 1.0 0.03 0.03 0.30 18.0 11.0 2.0 0.75 8%C
A5.9 to to to to to to
2.5 0.65 20.0 14.0 3.0 1.0
ER16-8-2 0.10 1.0s 0.03 0.03 0.30 14.5 7.5 1.0 0.75
to to to to to
2.0 0.65 16.5 9.5 2.0
that, beginning from the same ferrite level, 16-8-2 weld metal is much more resistant
to formation of sigma phase at elevated temperatures like 1000F than is either 316H
or 318 weld metal. With lesser sigma formation, the creep behavior of 16-8-2 weld
metal is improved. As noted by Marshall and Farrar (Ref. 1), these special properties
of 16-8-2 weld metal have resulted in the ASME Code allocating higher stress-rupture
factors to 16-8-2 weld metal than to 308- and 316-type weld metals.
The second reason is that, as a result of lower total alloy content, 16-8-2 weld metal
requires less ferrite in order to obtain primary ferrite solidification, which in turn pro-
vides maximum resistance to solidification cracking. The WRC-1992 Diagram (Figure
1) shows that the boundary below which primary ferrite solidification is obtained is
tilted somewhat relative to the iso-ferrite lines. So 16-8-2 weld metal, with a chro-
mium equivalent of about 17 or a bit less, will solidify as primary ferrite with even
less than 1 FN, while 316H weld metal, with a chromium equivalent of above about
20, requires at least 3 FN to solidify as primary ferrite.
Marshall and Farrar (Ref. 1) describe 16-8-2 as the overlooked or neglected austen-
itic stainless steel weld metal. I agree with that description. Weld metal of 16-8-2 type
was studied rather extensively during the 1960s through the 1980s when power-
90
Figure 1The Iso-Ferrite Lines are Labeled with the Expected

Ferrite Number, While Solidification Modes are Indicated by
A as 100% Austenite Solidification for Compositions Above
the 0 FN line, AF as Primary Austenite Solidification for
Compositions Below the 0 FN Line to the First Dashed Line,
FA as Primary Ferrite Solidification for Compositions
Between the Two Dashed Lines, and F as 100% Ferrite
Solidification Below the Second Dashed Line
generating plants were being extensively built in the United Statessee, for example,
Klueh and Edmonds (Ref. 2). Today, because there has been so little power-generating
plant construction over the last 20 years, there are not a lot of manufacturers of this
filler metal composition, but it remains available. I would suggest that this is the best
filler metal choice for welding your 316H vessel.
References
1. Marshall, A. W., and Farrar, J. C. M. 2001. Lean austenitic Type 16.8.2 stainless
steel weld metal, Stainless Steel World 2001 Conference Proceedings, paper P0114,
KCI Publishing, Zutphen, The Netherlands.
2. Klueh, R. L., and Edmonds, D. P. 1986. Chemical composition effects on the creep of
Type 316 and 16-8-2 stainless steel weld metal. Welding Journal 65(6): 156-s to
162-s.
91
1.54 ER309LMo Availability?

We have done some cladding with stainless steel covered electrodes of AWS
? A5.4 class E309LMo-16. Recently, for the first time, we purchased stain-
less steel wire for submerged arc cladding that was advertised as ER309LMo.
But when our incoming material inspection took place, the wire was rejected on
the ground that it did not meet AWS A5.9 Class ER309LMo composition require-
ments. In particular, the chromium was low (a little more than 21%) and the
nickel was high (around 15%). Subsequently, we tried to find another source that
met ER309LMo requirements, but were not successful. It seems that every prod-
uct we can find that is advertised as ER309LMo fits this same pattern of low
chromium and high nickel. What is going on here, and what can we do to find
real ER309LMo?
September 2012
Unless you purchase metal-cored EC309LMo, I doubt that you can find submerged arc
wire (or gas metal arc welding wire, for that matter) on the market that meets AWS
A5.9 ER309LMo composition requirements. This situation is driven by market eco-
nomics. That requires some explaining. First, you should realize that the covered elec-
trodes of the E309LMo-16 class are not made from 309LMo core wire. They are most
likely made from 309L core wire, or even from a leaner alloy than 309L, and a lot of
alloy is found in the coating.
There are two main reasons for wanting to use ER309LMo as specified in AWS A5.9.
The first is to obtain a rather high calculated ferrite content in undiluted weld metal
(typically 20 to 30 FN using the WRC-1992 Diagram) in order to allow for a lot of dilu-
tion in a dissimilar metal joint or cladding on carbon steel or low-alloy steel. The high
calculated wire ferrite content permits solidification of the diluted weld metal in the
primary ferrite solidification mode, which provides for high resistance to solidification
cracking. The second reason is to provide for some molybdenum in the diluted first
layer of cladding so that a second layer, deposited with ER316L, can achieve the 2%
minimum Mo of a 316L weld metal.
The economic problem with ER309LMo is that the high-ferrite composition is difficult
to draw into wire, or even to roll into rod stock prior to drawing into wire. The mate-
rial behaves more like a duplex stainless steel than an austenitic stainless steel,
which makes it rather expensive to produce. It requires more frequent and more care-
ful annealing than ordinary austenitic stainless steel compositions. The more fre-
quent annealing is due to the high strength and rapid work hardening of the higher-
ferrite material, and the care in annealing is due to need to control temperatures to
avoid sigma phase formation in the rod or wire as it is being reduced in diameter.
Europe, Japan, and others reacted to this situation by producing wire of the sort that
you purchased and rejected. Since chromium promotes ferrite while nickel promotes
austenite, the lower-chromium and higher-nickel results in a lower calculated ferrite
content for the wire, on the order of 15 FN as calculated from the WRC-1992 Diagram.
This modified composition is less resistant to excessive dilution and resulting solidifi-
cation cracking tendencies than the AWS A5.9 ER309LMo composition, so it requires
more limitation on dilution, the first reason for specifying ER309LMo. But, it serves
92
the second reason well, because it provides for the molybdenum in a first cladding
layer to help achieve 2% Mo minimum in a second layer deposited using ER316L.
Until now, the AWS A5.9 specification has not embraced this modified composition. It
can be found in the current ISO 14343 specification and in the older EN12072 specifi-
cation. The AWS A5 Committee on Filler Metals and Allied Materials, through its
A5D Subcommittee, seems to be on a path to adopting ISO 14343 as AWS A5.9 in the
not very distant future. This step will put the modified composition into the AWS A5.9
specification and ultimately into the ASME Code if all proceeds according to plan.
Table 1 provides a comparison of the composition of the AWS A5.9 ER309LMo compo-
sition requirements with those of the ISO 14343 S 23 12 2 L. This latter composition
is, almost certainly, what you actually purchased and rejected.
You can see that there is a great deal of overlap in the two sets of composition ranges.
In fact, the ER309LMo composition range is entirely inside of the S 22 12 2 L composi-
tion range. You might think that the two alloys are basically the same. However, you
need to appreciate that stainless steel melting no longer uses mid-range targets for
individual alloy elements as it once did. If the S 22 12 2 L rod stock were melted to
mid-range, it would also be very high in ferrite. But todays suppliers invariably aim
for the low end of the chromium range and the high end of the nickel range in these
alloys, to reduce the need both for the number of anneals and for care in annealing as
the cast material is processed into rod stock and eventually into wire. So these two
alloys are really not the same in practice.
If you can limit dilution, and if you can convince your customer to accept use of the
modified composition, then you should be able to use the modified composition of the S
22 12 2 L classification in ISO 14343 in place of the current AWS A5.9 class
ER309LMo.
If you cannot do these things, then your only alternative, I believe, is to purchase AWS
A5.9 Class EC309LMo metal cored wire. Metal cored wire, in this composition range
for submerged arc welding, is likely to be produced from low-carbon mild steel strip, with
all of the alloying elements present in the core. In smaller diameters, as for GMAW, it
is likely to be produced from 304L or 316L strip, with the remaining alloy elements in
the metal core. If the metal cored wire is produced from mild steel strip, the wire will
be quite soft and have very different feeding characteristics from those of solid stain-
Table 1Comparison of AWS A5.9 Class ER309LMo

and ISO 14343-A Class S 22 12 2 L
Composition (wt-%) (single value is a maximum)
Class C Mn P S Si Cr Ni Mo Cu
ER309LMo 0.03 1.0 0.03 0.03 0.30 23.0 12.0 2.0 0.75
2.5 0.65 25.0 14.0 3.0
S 22 12 2 L 0.03 1.0 0.03 0.02 1.0 21.0 11.0 2.0 0.75

2.5 25.0 15.5 3.5
93
less steel wire. You are likely to need U-grooved gear-drive rolls to avoid crushing or
flattening the wire, and low drive roll pressure. The fragility of high-alloy metal cored
wire made from mild steel strip requires some tenderness in handling and feeding the
wire. On the other hand, if you find EC309LMo wire made from 304L or 316L strip, it
will be considerably less fragile and will require less care in feeding. Also, be aware
that deformation of metal cored high-alloy wires is likely to lead to fill leakage, which
can wear contact tips and, in the extreme, can result in low alloy content in the weld
metal.
1.55 Sensitized 304 Tank?

We have fabricated some 304 stainless steel tanks using ER308LSi filler
? metal. Our customer specified the 304, rather than 304L, out of cost con-
cerns. Ordinary tap water is corroding the tanks, beside the welds. One corroded
tank was examined and found to be sensitized in the heat-affected zone (HAZ),
where the corrosion is occurring. Can we do anything about the remaining
tanks?
May 2013
Sensitization was previously addressed in the November 2007 Stainless Q&A column.
Briefly, sensitization occurs in those portions of the heat-affected zone (HAZ) that
reach a peak temperature between about 480 and 870C (900 and 1600F) when
there is enough carbon (more than 0.03%) available to produce precipitation of chro-
mium-rich carbides along grain boundaries. Higher peak temperatures than 870C
either allow chromium to diffuse fast enough to keep up with the carbon in forming
carbides, or actually cause the carbides to dissolve. Peak temperatures below about
480C dont allow enough carbon diffusion to form significant chromium carbides dur-
ing welding.
The carbides have the general formula M23C6, where M is any metallic element, but
chromium is by far the most concentrated metallic element in the carbides.
The carbon atom is a very small atom that can diffuse rapidly through the stainless
steel matrix to the grain boundaries, so that carbon from anywhere in a grain can
reach the grain boundary in this temperature range. But the chromium atom is a
large atom that diffuses slowly, so that only chromium from very close to the grain
boundary participates in formation of the carbides. Formation of the carbides then
tends to produce a chromium-depleted zone beside the grain boundary. This chro-
mium-depleted zone, if exposed to a corrosive medium, is preferentially attacked and
dissolved. The corrosion follows the chromium-depleted zones beside the grain bound-
aries and a continuous network of corrosion along grain boundaries causes grains to
separate from the weldment. Figure 1 shows the networks of chromium carbides along
the grain boundaries in a 304 HAZ.
First, one might ask why your customer would specify 304 instead of 304L. The con-
cern about cost made sense many years ago, but it really doesnt now. As recently as
1955, the only available methods of producing low-carbon stainless steel involved
94
Note: Th e chromi um carbid es respo nsible f or sen sitization appear as b lack spe cks a long th e
austenite grain boundaries
Figure 1Sensitized 304 Stainless Steel
decarburizing the melt under oxidizing conditions that removed chromium to the slag
(Ref. 1). As a result, the melt during decarburizing was designed to contain only about
2% Cr. Then after decarburization, expensive low-carbon ferrochromium was added to
the melt to reach the intended chromium content in the stainless steel. But around
1955, Dr. William A. Krivsky and his colleagues at what was then the Linde Division
of Union Carbide Corp. developed the argon-oxygen decarburization (AOD) process.
In the AOD process, much cheaper high-carbon ferrochromium was introduced into
the melt and an argon-oxygen gas mixture was forced into the melt. Combustion of the
carbon raised the temperature of the melt and removed the carbon. As the carbon
decreased, the oxygen content of the gas stream was decreased. Then ferrosilicon was
added to recover some oxidized chromium from the slag. The decarburization could be
stopped at whatever carbon level was desired. The argon cost was more than offset by
using cheap high-carbon ferrochromium instead of expensive low-carbon ferrochromium
for the alloying.
95
It took about 15 years to fully debug the AOD process, but since about 1970, the AOD
process has been the preferred method of stainless steel refining. It completely domi-
nates stainless steel refining in the Western World. Today, I am told that the price pre-
mium for 304L over 304 is about 1.5 to 2 cents/lb. That price difference is hardly worth
considering in view of the likelihood of sensitization when welding 304.
There is a second reason that 304 might be specified. Its specified minimum tensile
strength is 75 ksi (515 MPa) vs. 70 ksi (485 MPa) for 304L, and the specified mini-
mum yield strength of 304 is 30 ksi (205 MPa) vs. 25 ksi (170 MPa) according to
ASTM A240. However, you can purchase stainless steel that is dual certified as both
304 and 304L (i.e., it is below 0.03% carbon but still meets the higher strength
requirement of 304). That would take care of the strength concern.
The above discussion does not solve your problem, but hopefully it will keep others
from making the same mistake.
Once 304 (or any other nonlow-carbon stainless steel) has been sensitized, there are
only two ways of removing the sensitization; both involve heat treatment, and neither
is very palatable. The first is a solution anneal followed immediately by water quench.
The annealing temperature of about 1040C (1900F), for an hour or so, dissolves all
of the chromium carbides and diffuses chromium back into the chromium-depleted
zones beside the grain boundaries. The water quench from the annealing temperature
is necessary to keep the carbon in solution. The problem with this approach, however,
besides cost, is that the stainless steel oxidizes heavily at the annealing temperature
and tends to distort both at the annealing temperature and during the quench. A
cylindrical shape, such as a pipe, lends itself to this approach because the cylindrical
shape is quite stiff, and entering the quench from one end of an open cylinder greatly
limits distortion. But a tank does not lend itself readily to this approach. If you were
to anneal and quench your tanks, I believe you would need to rigidly support the
tanks to maintain their present shape, and you would have to descale after the
quench.
The second heat treatment involves considerably lower temperature, but much longer
time. The idea behind this second heat treatment is to allow the carbides to form, but
to provide enough time at temperature to also allow chromium to diffuse back into the
chromium-depleted zones and eliminate them. This can require more than 100 h at a
temperature like 760C (1400F). Figure 2 illustrates the effect of temperature on
chromium carbide precipitation and on intergranular corrosion (labeled IC attack in
the figure). It can be seen from this figure, reproduced from Folkhard (Ref. 2), that
long times at intermediate temperatures can be used to heal the damage from sensiti-
zation. The advantages of this approach over annealing and quenching is that distor-
tion will be much less (in part because no quench is required at the end of the
treatment) and scaling will not occur although the steel will be oxidized. So cleanup
afterward is less. But 100 h at 760C is not cheap.
In conclusion, use of 304 in a weldment that will see corrosive service is not a good
idea. The fix is expensive.
References
1. Krivsky, W. A. 1973. Stainless History, Metallurgical and Materials Transactions,
Vol. 4, No. 6, pp. 14391477.
2. Folkhard, E. 1988. Welding Metallurgy of Stainless Steels. Springer-Verlag, Vienna.
96
Figure 2Graphic Display of the Effects of Time and Temperature

on Chromium Carbide Precipitation and Intergranular
Corrosion (IC) in 304 Stainless Steel
97
WELDING STAINLESS STEELQUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CHAPTER 2FERRITIC
Chapter 2
Welding of Ferritic Stainless Steels
2.1 What Became of the E409T-2 Classification in

AWS A5.22?
What became of the E409T-2 classification in AWS A5.22? It used to be pos-
? sible to get wire of this classification for welding automobile exhaust sys-
tems, but now it has a new classification, EC409, in the AWS A5.9 standard.
November 1999
In fact, all of the EXXXT-2 classifications, not just E409T-2, disappeared from AWS
A5.22 when the 1995 revision was published. The scope of both AWS A5.22-95 and its
predecessor, AWS A5.22-80, indicates the products being classified contain at least 5%
nonmetallic ingredients, by weight of the electrode. But electrodes such as the E409T-2
you mentioned, designed for use in 98% argon-2% oxygen shielding gas, are really
metal cored wires, not flux cored wires. They contain on the order of 1% or less, by
weight, of nonmetallic ingredients, which is clearly outside of the scope of AWS A5.22.
In the real world, true flux cored electrodes containing more than 5% slag ingredients
do not weld very well in the 98% argon-2% oxygen shielding gas specified for EXXXT-
2 classifications in AWS A5.22-80. There is a serious tendency for slag entrapment
during welding. So, realizing there is no commercial embodiment of an EXXXT-2 flux
cored electrode, the AWS Filler Metal Committee decided to delete this classification
possibility from AWS A5.22-95. The so-called E409T-2 was actually an incorrect classi-
fication. However, filler metal manufacturers took to using it because the 409 compo-
sition did not formerly exist in AWS A5.9. But it does today.
As was intended by the AWS Filler Metal Committee all along, metal cored electrodes
for stainless steel have their proper home in AWS A5.9.
2.2 Filler Metal for 446 When I Cant Get 446 Filler?
I have to join some Type 446 stainless steel components for use in a heat
? treating furnace. The furnace will operate at temperatures up to 2000F.
Im having trouble locating a small amount of 446 filler metal. Is there another,
more common, filler metal that could be used in place of 446? How about 309L?
May 2001
99
CHAPTER 2FERRITIC WELDING STAINLESS STEELQUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Type 446 stainless steel is nominally a ferritic alloy. I say nominally because it usu-
ally contains enough carbon so that, at high temperatures, some austenite will form.
This austenite then transforms to martensite upon cooling. The main reason for
selecting 446 stainless is its high chromium content, which gives it resistance to scal-
ing at temperatures up to 2000F (1095C) or higher. So the filler metal chosen has to
match this oxidation resistance. In chromium content, 309L filler metal is close, so it
is not a bad choice. Table 1 lists the chemical composition of Type 446 stainless steel
base metal in the form of sheet or plate as it appears in ASTM A176, and the chemical
composition of 309L filler metal as it appears in AWS A5.4 Specification for Covered
Stainless Steel Filler Metals.
Also included in Table 1 is the composition of 310 filler metal. You can see the chro-
mium content is a better match with that of the 446 base metal than the chromium
content of the 309L. The 310 filler metal is likely, therefore, to provide a better oxida-
tion resistance match to the 446 base metal than will 309L filler metal. E310-15 and,
especially, E310-16 stainless steel electrodes are widely available. The undiluted weld
metal of 310 is fully austenitic, so there is some sensitivity to hot cracking. However,
of all of the fully austenitic stainless steel filler metals, 310 is among the best in resis-
tance to hot cracking. E310-15 has even better hot cracking resistance than E310-16,
but either should be suitable, and E310-16 is easier to find. Due to dilution from the
nearly nickel-free, high-chromium base metal, the root pass with 310 filler metal
should contain some ferrite and have excellent hot cracking resistance. Second and
subsequent passes are likely to be ferrite-free, but a sound root provides a high degree
of hot cracking resistance through the remainder of the joint. With 310 filler metal,
concave beads should be avoided and care should be used to fill craters, to prevent hot
cracking.
Be aware there is a mismatch in coefficient of thermal expansion between the mostly

ferritic 446 stainless and any austenitic stainless filler metal, including 309L or 310.
This mismatch can result in thermal fatigue at the interface between the base metal
Table 1Compositions of 446 Base Metal

and 309L and 310 Covered Electrodes
%
Alloy %C % Mn %P %S % Si % Cr % Ni % Mo Other
A176 0.20 1.5 0.04 0.03 1.00 23.0 0.75 N

Type 446 max. max. max. max. max. to max. 0.25
27.0 max.
A5.4 0.04 0.5 to 0.04 0.03 0.90 22.0 12.0 0.75 Cu

E309L-XX max. 2.5 max. max. max. to to max. 0.75
25.0 14.0 max.
A5.4 0.08 1.0 to 0.03 0.03 0.75 25.0 22.0 0.75 Cu
E310-XX to 2.5 max. max. max. to to max. 0.75
0.20 28.0 22.5 max.
100
and filler metal in case of rapid thermal cycling. There are other ferritic stainless steel
filler metals, such as E430-XX, that better match the coefficient of thermal expansion
of 446 stainless, but they are lower in chromium than 446 and cant match its oxida-
tion resistance. In a heat treatment furnace, thermal cycling is not very rapid, so I
dont think you will encounter thermal fatigue under normal operating conditions if
you use the 309L or the 310 filler metal. You will have to exercise some engineering
judgment here.
2.3 Stick Electrode for 409?

I need to weld 409 stainless pieces for truck exhaust systems. When I tried
? to buy 409 covered electrodes from my welding supply distributor, he told
me they are not available and instead offered me 409 metal cored wire. I dont
have equipment to run the wire and would prefer to use covered electrodes. He
suggested 309L electrodes, but I wonder if that is correct. I thought he might
have been kidding because he didnt have 409 covered electrodes in stock and
didnt want to lose a sale. I went to another distributor and was told more or less
the same story. Now Im not sure. Whats the straight scoop?
September 2001
He was not kidding. As far as I know, there is no such thing as a 409 covered elec-
trode. The reason for this is that 409 stainless (nominally 11% Cr, 0.5% Ti) is alloyed
with titanium, which reacts with the silicate binder in the coating of covered elec-
trodes during welding, as well as with any oxygen available. So, most of the titanium
is lost, and the slag tends to become indestructible. As a result, no one makes 409 cov-
ered electrodes.
In Japan, there is a ferritic stainless steel electrode known as 410Nb that produces
an equivalent weld deposit to the 409 base metal. The niobium (often called colum-
bium in the United States) has the same stabilizing effect as the titanium in the 409
base metal, without the tendency to be lost during welding or to produce indestructi-
ble slag. However, I doubt you will find a source of 410Nb covered electrodes in this
country.
Actually, 309L covered electrodes are probably the best choice. Years ago, using gas
metal arc welding, ER309LSi was used extensively in the manufacture of 409 stain-
less steel automobile exhaust systems. This practice fell out of favor because 409
metal-cored wires became available and were less costly than ER309LSi. But the
exhaust systems welded with ER309LSi have performed very well. If you have only a
few pieces to weld, I suggest you use 309L covered electrodes. But if you have a lot of
these pieces to weld, it might be worth investing in GMAW equipment and going with
409 metal-cored wire.
101
2.4 Heat Treatment of 430 Weldment?

We have qualified welding procedures for 409 stainless steel without diffi-
? culty. Now, in an attempt to make the same exhaust system parts with
higher corrosion resistance, we have tried to qualify welding procedures for 430
stainless. We couldnt locate a source of ER430 wire, so we tried ER308LSi.
Using the 409, welded with 409 filler metal, we could pass a transverse face bend
test and a transverse root bend test. But the 430 samples break beside the weld.
I dont think this can be due to using ER308LSi filler metal. I thought 430 stain-
less is a ferritic stainless, just like 409, and is not supposed to be hardenable, but
these samples all seem hard beside the weld. Does the use of nonmatching filler
metal have anything to do with this? What is the problem here?
July 2003
To begin, I agree with you that using ER308LSi is not the cause of your problem. Type
430 stainless steel is commonly described as a ferritic stainless steel, but that is a bit
of an oversimplification. We can think of ferritic stainless steels as having been devel-
oped in three generations. Working backward, the most modern ferritic stainless
steels, like 444, were developed after steelmakers became efficient at decarburizing
iron-chromium melts so they contain 0.025% C or less. These third-generation ferritic
stainless steels are ferritic at all temperatures, so they are completely nonhardenable
(excluding long time aging to precipitate intermetallic compounds). The predecessor to
these very low carbon ferritic stainless steels is the second generation, those stainless
steels with a little more carbon but with alloy elements (Ti, Al, Nb) added to tie up the
carbon at high temperatures and/or promote ferrite. Your Type 409 is an example of
this second generation of ferritic stainless steels. Through the 1997 version of ASTM
A240, 409 was permitted to contain up to 0.08% C, which sometimes allowed traces of
austenite to form under certain circumstances. The 1998 version of ASTM A240
reduced the allowable carbon in 409 to 0.030%, which largely eliminated traces of aus-
tenite at high temperatures. The still older first generation of ferritic stainless steels
includes those with appreciable carbon but no extra alloy elements to tie up the car-
bon or promote ferrite. This first generation of ferritic stainless steels includes your
Type 430 (up to 0.12% C). As originally developed, they tended to contain considerable
free carbon, and they still largely do today. Table 1 lists compositions of these three
ferritic stainless steels, as given in ASTM A240, 2003 version.
In the annealed condition, as Type 430 would normally be supplied, with a normal
carbon content of about 0.07%, the microstructure consists of scattered chromium car-
bides in a matrix of ferrite. ASTM A240 requires it to be soft (89 Rockwell B hardness
maximum) and ductile (20% or 22% elongation in 2 in., minimum, depending upon
thickness). However, any subsequent exposure to temperatures above about 1650F
(900C), as occurs in the heat- affected zone of a weld, will cause at least part of these
carbides to dissolve and austenite to form in place of the carbides and in place of some
of the ferrite. This austenite will be high in carbon. On cooling after welding, this aus-
tenite will mainly transform to martensite, with quite detrimental effects on the
cross-weld ductility. This, I expect, is the root cause of your problem.
102
Table 1Representatives of Three Generations

of Nominally Ferritic Stainless Steels
Gener- UNS % % % % % % % %
ation No. Type C Mn P S Si Cr Ni Mo Other
1 S43000 430 0.12. 1.00 0.040 0.030 1.00 16.0 0.75

max. max. max. max. max. to max.
18.0
2 S40900 409 0.030 1.00 0.040 0.020 1.00 10.5 0.50 N

max. max. max. max. max. to max. 0.030
11.7 max.(a)
3 S44400 444 0.025 1.00 0.040 0.030 1.00 17.5 1.00 1.75 N
max. max. max. max. max. to max. to 0.035
19.5 2.50 max.(b)
(a) There are three subdivisions of 409 with slightly different requirements. UNS S40910 contains Ti = 6x(C+N)
min., 0.50% max.; Nb = 0.17% max. UNS S40920 contains Ti = 8x(C+N) min., 0.15 to 0.50%; Nb = 0.10%
max. UNS S40930 contains (Ti + Nb) = [0.08% + 8x(C+N) min., 0.75% max.; Ti = 0.05% min.]. All are
included under the UNS S40900 umbrella.
(b) (Ti+Nb) = [0.20% + 4x(C+N)] min., 0.80% max.
This austenite formation should not be viewed as all bad. The austenite effectively
prevents grain growth of the ferrite, a problem that plagues the third generation of
ferritic stainless steels. While the third generation of ferritic stainless steels has out-
standing corrosion resistance, the loss of ductility and, especially, of toughness in the
heat-affected zone (HAZ) is a major limitation to their more widespread application.
There are two ways your problem can be solved. One way would be to perform a
postweld heat treatment to return the HAZ to its annealed condition. This can be
accomplished at about 1450F (790C), in as little as 5 min at temperature, followed
by air cooling. At this temperature, the scattered chromium carbides precipitate
again, and the martensite, with carbon removed, becomes ferrite.
If postweld heat treatment is not acceptable, and you cannot live with the reduced
cross-weld ductility, then I think you have to change base metals. You indicated that
you wanted an improvement in corrosion resistance over that of 409, which steered
you to the 17% Cr of 430. I suggest you consider switching to Type 439 stainless steel.
This is a low carbon, 18% Cr ferritic stainless steel stabilized with titanium, much as
your 409 is stabilizedTable 2. You can continue using ER308LSi filler metal, or you
can obtain tubular metal-cored welding wires that match the composition of the 439
stainless. Type 439 has a proven track record in automotive exhaust system compo-
nents, so there should be no concern about making this change.
103
Table 2Type 439 Ferritic Stainless Steel
Gener- UNS % % % % % % % % Other

ation No. Type C Mn P S Si Cr Ni Mo %
2 S43035 439 0.030 1.00 0.040 0.030 1.00 17.0 0.50 N

max. max. max. max. max. to max. 0.030
19.0 max.(a)
(a) (Ti+Nb) = [0.20% + 4x(C+N)] min., 1.10% max.; Al = 0.15% max.
2.5 Bend Tests of 409 SAW WeldsHydrogen

Cracking During Bending?
Im trying to consistently pass qualification tests on 3/16-in. (4.8-mm) 409
? stainless steel, including a transverse face bend required by my customer.
The surfaces of the bend specimens are first ground down to eliminate any
notches at the bead edges. The bend radius is 3/4 in. (19 mm), so that should be
easy. We are using one-side submerged arc welding (SAW). With 309L filler
metal, we pass every time. But with 409Cb filler metal, we fail about half of the
bend samples. The bend samples that fail are fracturing in the weld after very
little bending. But the sample right next to a failed one, from the same plate, is
likely to pass. Whats wrong?
July 2005
Type 409 is a very lean ferritic stainless steel that is borderline for formation of some
martensite in the heat-affected zone (HAZ). ER309L works well for such a joint
because the diluted weld metal will be stable austenite with quite a bit of ferrite. The
austenite retains any hydrogen, largely preventing it from causing any embrittlement
in the HAZ, and the weld metal itself is immune to hydrogen damage. The austenite is
also not sensitive to grain size effects. The only thing that can cause problems with
ER309L filler metal is excessive dilution, which can result in a fusion zone with con-
siderable martensite, and then the fusion zone would likely fracture in a bend test.
But that does not seem to be the problem in your case.
However, there are several potential problems with the ER409Cb weld metal. These
include grain growth, martensite formation in the HAZ and fusion zone, and diffusible
hydrogen causing loss of ductility or cold cracking. Table 1 lists the composition of the
three current versions of Type 409 in ASTM A240, along with that of the ER409Cb
from AWS A5.9.
Figure 1 shows two samples of welds you made with ER409Cb, one bent and one bro-
ken. Even at the low magnification of the macros, it is easy to see the grain growth
that has occurred in the mostly ferritic microstructure of the weld metal and HAZ. A
nearly continuous grain boundary along the centerline of each sample is visible. Such
104
Table 1409 Plate and ER409Cb Compositions
Composition1, wt-%
UNS
Numbe Nb
Type r C Mn P S Si Cr Ni N Ti (Cb)
409 S40910 0.030 1.00 0.040 0.020 1.00 10.5 0.50 0.030 6 0.17
to (C+N)
11.7 to
0.50
409 S40920 0.030 1.00 0.040 0.020 1.00 10.5 0.50 0.030 8 0.10
to (C+N)
11.7 min.;
0.15
to
0.50
409 S40930 0.030 1.00 0.040 0.020 1.00 10.5 0.50 0.030 Ti+Nb =
to [0.08+8
11.7 (C+N)] to
0.75; Ti =
0.05 min.
ER409Cb S40940 0.08 0.8 1.0 0.04 0.03 10.5 0.6 10C
to to
13.5 0.75
1. A single value is a maximum unless otherwise indicated.
Figure 1Bend Specimens of 409 Submerged Arc Welded with ER409Cb
105
centerline grain boundaries are a plane of weakness and have been known to be prone
to centerline cracking during solidification, but that is not what has happened to
either sample. Note that the fracture path in the broken sample is not along the weld
centerline.
At higher magnification, as can be seen in Figure 2, it is clear that both welds contain
some grain boundary martensite, indicating partial transformation to austenite dur-
ing cooling from solidification. But the grain boundary martensite is not the crack
path.
Note that the main crack path is across ferrite grains, and that there are secondary
cracks in the ferrite beside the main crack path. The secondary cracks are planar, par-
allel to the main crack or to one of two other planes in the grain. The cracking appears
to be cleavage along certain crystallographic planes. I believe the cracking is due to
the action of diffusible hydrogen under the slow strain conditions of bending.
Normally, one doesnt think of ferrite as being susceptible to diffusible hydrogen dam-
age, but it has been known to happen in very coarse-grained ferritic stainless steels.
You should be able to establish that diffusible hydrogen is the cause of the failures by
removing the diffusible hydrogen before bending. I suggest that, after welding, you
cool the sample to room temperature (to make sure that austenite has transformed to
martensite), then age the samples at 250C (482F) for 16 h, or at 100C (212F) for
48 h, to remove diffusible hydrogen before bending. If you can now consistently pass
the bend test, that will identify diffusible hydrogen as the cause of the failures.
Of course, you would not want to have to age the finished product at elevated temper-
ature before putting it into service, but a week or two at room temperature will accom-
plish the same hydrogen removal. And, if the weldments are intended for service in an
(A) Successful Bend Specimen (B) Failed Bend Specimen
Figure 2Fusion Zone Photomicrographs of 409

Stainless Steel Submerged Arc Welded with ER409Cb
106
engine exhaust system, the high temperatures of the service will accomplish the same
hydrogen removal.
If diffusible hydrogen is the problem, you can very likely lessen or eliminate its effect
by eliminating the sources of the diffusible hydrogen. A very significant possibility is
that your flux has picked up moisture. Baking the flux at 345 to 425C (650 to
800F) before welding should lessen the hydrogen available from the moisture in the
flux. That may be enough to eliminate the failures without any aging.
2.6 Martensite in the HAZ of 3Cr12Ti or no Ti?

We weld a lot of 3CR12 stainless steel, most commonly 1/8 to 1/4 in. thick.
? We take metallographic cross sections from time to time and we find that
some heats of 3CR12 have extensive martensite in the HAZ, while other heats
have little or no martensite. The base metal is entirely ferrite. Of course, the
martensite is hard, so this concerns us, even though test coupons seem ductile
enough. Can you explain the differences in HAZ behavior among heats of
3CR12?
September 2005
Originally a trade name of Columbus Stainless, a steel mill in South Africa, 3CR12
is now used rather generically by several steel suppliers and is variously described as
a ferritic or ferritic/martensitic 11% Cr stainless steel. It appears in ASTM A240 as
UNS S41003 and in Europe as Material Number 1.4003, although the two specifica-
tions are not exactly the same.
In particular, conformance to S41003 does not require nickel as an alloying element,
although it is permitted, while conformance to 1.4003 does require some nickel. In
addition to the composition ranges of S41003 and 1.4003, some suppliers, but not all,
include a deliberate addition of titanium.
Table 1 lists the compositions of UNS S41003, Material Number 1.4003, and the com-
position ranges given by two suppliers who indicate titanium additions in their 3CR12
on their Web sites.
Supplier A indicates conformance to both S41003 and Material Number 1.4003, while
Supplier B does not indicate any conformances. Also included in Table 1 is one of three
composition ranges given in ASTM A240 for 409 stainless steel, UNS S40920. Note
that the 3CR12 of both Supplier A and Supplier B could, with slightly restricted com-
position, be certified as 409.
The presence or absence of nickel, and the presence or absence of titanium, are both
important to the thermal behavior of the HAZ. All possible compositions of 3CR12 will
solidify as 100% ferrite. So the part of the HAZ closest to the weld fusion zone will be
100% ferrite at peak temperature. At intermediate temperatures, between about
1300 and 900C (2340 and 1650F), austenite may form, depending upon the bal-
ance between austenite-promoting elements and ferrite-promoting elements. Nickel,
carbon, and nitrogen are austenite-promoting elements, while titanium and chro-
mium are ferrite-promoting elements. If the austenite-promoting elements dominate,
107
Table 13CR12 Compositions, % (Single Value = max.)
Specification C Mn P S Si Cr Ni N Ti
UNS S41003 0.030 1.50 0.040 0.030 1.00 10.5 1.50 0.030
to
12.5
Material 0.03 0.5 0.045 0.030 1.0 10.5 0.3 0.030

Number to to to
1.4003 1.5 12.5 1.0
Supplier A 0.03 1.5 0.03 0.03 1.0 11.0 1.5 0.6
to
12.0
Supplier B 0.03 2.00 0.40 0.030 1.00 10.5 1.50 4(C+N)

to to
12.5 0.60
UNS S40920 0.030 1.00 0.040 0.020 1.00 10.5 0.50 0.030 0.15
to to
11.7 0.50
austenite will form in this temperature range. If the ferrite-promoting elements domi-
nate, little or no austenite will form. Austenite formation may be complete in this tem-
perature range, or it may be partial, again depending upon the balance of alloy
elements. Furthermore, in the more remote portions of the HAZ, where the peak tem-
perature is less than about 900C, the formation of a lesser amount of austenite can
take place. Whatever austenite does form will eventually transform to martensite on
cooling below about 300C (570F), and this is what you find in subsequent examination.
Balmforth and Lippold (Ref. 1) developed a constitution diagram for the range of
steels being considered here. It is instructive to use this diagram to examine the
behavior of steels of varying nickel and titanium contents, at some nominal level in
the composition ranges for the other elements.
Assuming no Ni or Ti, and a base composition of 0.02% C, 0.02% N, and 11.5% Cr, a
Chromium Equivalent of 11.5 and a Nickel Equivalent of 1.1 are calculated from the
Balmforth and Lippold diagram of Figure 1. This is plotted as the lower-left corner of
the 3CR12 rectangle in Figure 1.
If no Ti is present, but Ni is added to the maximum of 1.5%, that composition plots as

the upper-left corner of the rectangle. If no Ni is present, but the maximum of 0.6% Ti
is added, that composition plots as the lower-right corner of the rectangle. And if both
Ni and Ti are present at their maximum, according to Supplier A or Supplier B, of
1.5% and 0.6% respectively, that composition plots as the upper-right corner of the
rectangle.
Of course, that rectangle would be still larger if Cr, C, and N were allowed to vary over
their full ranges, instead of being fixed.
108
Figure 1Balmforth and Lippold Diagram with a Rectangle

of 3CR12 Compositions of Varying Ti and Ni
It should be noted that the Balmforth and Lippold diagram was developed for as-solid-
ified weld metal, not for the HAZ, so its predictions may not be totally accurate. Nev-
ertheless, the diagram can be expected to give a reasonable prediction of
compositional effects. In particular, it can be seen that anywhere from no martensite
(at 0.6% Ti and no Ni) to about 90% martensite (at 1.5% Ni and no Ti) can be expected.
Figure 2 shows the HAZ of a real weld in 3CR12 that is free of both Ti and Ni. This
composition would be at the lower-left corner of the 3CR12 rectangle in Figure 1, and
would be predicted to contain about 60% martensite. The actual microstructure of the
HAZ closest to the weld is seen in Figure 2 to be nearly 100% martensite. Farther
from the fusion boundary, where the peak temperature was below about 900C, there
is a mixture of ferrite and martensite indicating incomplete formation of austenite at
the peak temperature.
Figure 3 shows the HAZ of UNS S40920, which could also be 3CR12 according to
either Supplier A or Supplier B. Note that there is no martensite whatsoever visible.
Only rather coarse ferrite, with scattered titanium carbo-nitrides, can be seen.
Because there was no austenite present at high temperature, the ferrite grains were
free to grow unchecked. The grains on the left side of Figure 3 saw lower peak temper-
ature than those on the right side, because they are farther from the weld interface,
which explains why the grains on the left are coarser.
109
(A) Above 1300C Peak Temperature (B) Below 900C Peak Temperature
Figure 2Microstructure of HAZ of 3CR12 (No Ti or Ni)
Figure 3Hottest Part of HAZ of a Weld in Ti-Containing 3CR12

This Could Also be Certified as UNS S40920,
Commonly Known as 409 Stainless Steel
The differences between Figure 2 and Figure 3 illustrate the range of HAZ results
that can be found in materials sold as 3CR12. Each has its range of usefulness.
If the coarse grains of the HAZ in Figure 3 are not detrimental to the intended appli-
cation (they can be harmful in subsequent cold-forming), then the titanium addition
can be suitable.
On the other hand, if a hard HAZ is not harmful, or if there is to be PWHT at, for
example, 700 to 750C (1290 to 1380F) as is often recommended for annealing
3CR12, then the Ti-free version is suitable.
110
If you want one or the other type of HAZ, you have to be more specific in ordering steel
than just ordering 3CR12. I think that, if you check further into the differences you
have been observing, you will find that different behavior in the HAZ correlates with
different suppliers of 3CR12.
Reference
1. Balmforth, M. C., and Lippold, J. C. 2000. A new ferritic-martensitic stainless steel
constitution diagram. Welding Journal 79(12): 339-s to 345-s.
111
WELDING STAINLESS STEELQUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CHAPTER 3MARTENSITIC
Chapter 3
Welding of Martensitic Stainless Steels
3.1 Welding High Carbon Martensitics?

How can I repair weld a 440C stainless shear blade without risk of
? cracking?
November 1999
You cant. This is an intrinsically risky job. Type 440C is a high-carbon martensitic
stainless containing about 1% C and 17% Cr. In the form of a shear blade, it is proba-
bly hardened and tempered to about 60 Rockwell C, which means its tensile ductility
is on the order of 2% or less. I have to assume the hardness of the repair must approx-
imately match that of the base metal. Therefore, not only is the weld likely to crack
during cooling but the base metal may also crack because there is not enough ductility
to handle the shrinkage strains around the weld. But there are two procedures you
could use that would minimize the risk of cracking. Both welding procedures take
advantage of the fact the martensite start temperature of this alloy is below 600F
(315C), and transformation of austenite to ferrite and carbides at temperatures
below 1000F (540C) is very sluggish, requiring days, or even weeks, to begin. Both of
the following procedures will produce a welded joint that has nearly the same hard-
ness as the base metal.
The safer, but more costly, procedure involves austenitizing the entire weldment at
about 1900F (1040C), cooling rather quickly to 600800F (315425C) and main-
taining this latter temperature range as the preheat and interpass temperature. At
the high austenitizing temperature, the steel becomes quite plastic and deforms eas-
ily, so support and fixturing in the furnace are necessary to maintain dimensions and
an atmosphere (inert gas or nitrogen) may be necessary to prevent severe oxidation.
This plasticity remains as long as the austenite doesnt transform. Cover all of the
weldment with insulating material except the joint area itself. Use burners or strip
heaters to uniformly maintain this preheat and interpass temperature range away
from the weld joint. Use approximately matching filler metal. After welding is com-
pleted, allow the weldment to cool slowly to ambient temperature. Then perform a
PWHT to temper the resulting martensite to desired hardness. Often a double temper,
with intermediate cooling back to ambient between heating cycles, is recommended to
obtain the best properties by eliminating retained austenite. This procedure main-
tains the entire weldment as austenite during welding, so shrinkage strains are easily
accommodated by the plastic austenite.
113
CHAPTER 3MARTENSITIC WELDING STAINLESS STEELQUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
The cheaper procedure (but with higher risk of cracking) is to preheat the entire weld-
ment only to the 600800F temperature range, then weld while maintaining the
weldment in this range. Then the weld metal and heat-affected zone are austenite,
and plastic, but the base metal remains martensite, and brittle. After welding is com-
pleted, cool slowly to ambient temperature. Cooling rates should be no more than 25F
(15C) per hour. Yes, that means on the order of 24 h to cool the piece down to ambient
temperature. Then perform the PWHT as above.
A source for matching filler metal is a problem. There is no AWS specification address-
ing such a composition. I would suggest buying small-diameter rod stock (1/8 in.
[3.2 mm], or less) from a steel supplier to use as GTAW filler metal or as SAW filler
metal with a metallurgically basic flux.
A word of caution: Use of Type 312 stainless steel filler metal is sometimes recom-
mended for high-carbon stainless steels such as 440C. If this is used instead of match-
ing filler metal, the hardness of the 440C cannot be approached in the weld, and
PWHT may cause the weld metal to transform in part to sigma phase (an intermetal-
lic compound of approximately FeCr), which is quite brittle.
3.2 410NiMo for 22 RC max.?

Im trying to qualify several procedures to repair weld CA-6NM valve body
? castings with 410NiMo filler metal. A hardness requirement of 22 Rock-
well C maximum in the weld metal and HAZ must be met. This hardness limit is
turning out to be a serious problem. Ive tried a number of stress relief tempera-
tures from 1100F up to as high as 1350F, but I cant get the hardness down. In
fact, stress relief at the higher temperatures seems to make the weld harder
than stress relief at lower temperatures. What can be done to get the hardness
down?
June 2000
The 22 Rockwell C hardness limitation probably means the casting is intended for cor-
rosive service. The National Association of Corrosion Engineers (NACE) recommends
such hardness limits for corrosive service, such as sour gas or sour crude oil. The CA-
6NM casting and the 410NiMo filler metal are compositionally very similar and are
often selected for sour service. See ASTM A743 for composition limits for the CA-6NM
casting, AWS A5.4 for composition limits for 410NiMo covered electrodes, AWS A5.9
for limits for bare wires and AWS A5.22 for limits for flux cored wires. It will be
instructive to compare these sets of limits, as shown in Table 1.
The main problem, as regards softening by postweld heat treatment (PWHT), is the
nickel content of the casting and the filler metals. The approximately 4% nickel in the
casting and filler metals reduces the temperature at which austenite begins to form
during heating. In an ordinary carbon steel, austenite begins to form when the tem-
perature rises to about 1330F (720C). In a nickel-free 12% chromium martensitic
stainless steel, such as 410 or CA-15, chromium raises the temperature at which aus-
tenite begins to form to about 1440F (780C). Therefore, these 12% chromium steels
114
Table 1Composition Limits
ASTM A743 AWS A5.4 AWS A5.9 AWS A5.22

Material CA-6NM E410NiMo-XX ER410NiMo E410NiMoTX-X
C, % 0.06 max. 0.06 max. 0.06 max. 0.06 max.
Mn, % 1.00 max. 1.0 max. 0.6 max. 1.0 max.
P, % 0.04 max. 0.04 max. 0.03 max. 0.04 max.
S, % 0.03 max. 0.03 max. 0.03 max. 0.03 max.
Si, % 1.00 max. 0.90 max. 0.5 max. 1.0 max.
Cr, % 11.5 to 14.0 11.0 to 12.5 11.0 to 12.5 11.0 to 12.5
Ni, % 3.5 to 4.5 4.0 to 5.0 4.0 to 5.0 4.0 to 5.0
Mo, % 0.40 to 1.00 0.40 to 0.70 0.4 to 0.7 0.40 to 0.70
can be postweld heat treated at temperatures of 1350F (730C) or even a bit higher,
and they are easily softened to below 22 Rockwell C.
But the 4% nickel in the CA-6NM or 410NiMo changes everything. Nickel is a power-
ful promoter of austenite. It reduces the temperature at which austenite begins to
form at slightly above 1150F (620C). If tempered at a higher temperature, some aus-
tenite will form. The higher the temperature, the more austenite will form. Then,
when the stress-relieved weldment is cooled back to ambient temperature, this aus-
tenite transforms to fresh, untempered martensite, which is hard. If you choose a
stress-relief temperature at which the weldment is partially austenite and partially
martensite, only the portion of the microstructure that remains martensite will be
softened. Then the measured macroscopic hardness at ambient temperature is a com-
posite of the softer tempered martensite and the harder fresh martensite.
The solution lies in a double tempering heat treatment. The first temper is done at a
temperature at which the weldment microstructure is approximately half austenite
and half martensite, 1250F (675C), for two hours at temperature. This tempers the
martensite portion of the microstructure. Cooling to ambient temperature causes the
austenite portion of the microstructure to transform to fresh martensite. This cooling
is essential to complete the transformation of the austenitein fact, refrigeration to
dry ice or even liquid nitrogen temperature has been used in some cases to complete
the transformation. After cooling, a second temper, at 1140F (615C), will soften the
fresh martensite. Since the temperature is lower for this second temper, a longer time
is needed, typically four hours.
There are some composition effects worthy of consideration. Note the silicon limits for
the various filler metals in Table 1. ER410NiMo has a lower silicon limit than the cov-
ered electrodes and flux cored wires. Silicon is known to increase resistance to soften-
ing in PWHT. Achievement of the 22 Rockwell C limit may hinge on keeping the
115
silicon low (0.4%). The silicon in the covered electrodes and flux cored wire may or
may not be low. This should be discussed with your electrode supplier.
Another consideration is tramp elements in the weld metal. Slag systems in the weld-
ing electrode based on titanium dioxide produce residual titanium in the weld metal.
Also, titanium dioxide, as the mineral rutile, generally contains vanadium as an
impurity. Both vanadium and titanium in the weld metal make the softening of the
weld metal in PWHT more difficult. If shielded metal arc or flux cored arc welding, try
to select electrodes with slag systems that are metallurgically basic (low in TiO2). For
gas metal arc or gas tungsten arc welding, the ER410NiMo does not normally contain
significant Ti and V tramp elements. If ER410NiMo is to be used in submerged arc
welding, choose a flux low in TiO2 and discuss this flux selection with the technical
department of your flux supplier.
3.3 What are Super Martensitic Stainlesses?

Ive heard mention of a new generation of stainless steels called super
? martensitic stainless steels. Please define them.
January 2001
The so-called super martensitic stainless steels are currently receiving a lot of atten-
tion in Europe, particularly for flow lines for off-shore oil, because they may be a lower
cost alternative to duplex stainless steels. Since they are resistant to oil contaminated
with water, carbon dioxide and limited levels of hydrogen sulfide, supermartinsitic
stainless steels are being treated as if they were something new. Actually, the concept
is rather old.
The idea behind these stainless steels is to produce low carbon martensite so the
material is weldable with little or no preheat, yet still provides high strength. The
casting alloy known in the United States as CA-6NM (sometimes as 410NiMo) is vir-
tually a super martensitic stainless, and it is several decades old. A very complete
review of super martensitic stainless steels is contained in a larger review by A. W.
Marshall and J. C. M. Farrar, Welding of Ferritic and Martensitic 13% Cr Stainless
Steels, (IIW Document IX-1975-00), which is soon to be published in Welding in the
World. The main difference between CA-6NM and a super martensitic stainless is in
the carbon content. CA-6NM is limited to 0.06% C maximum, and is typically about
0.04%, while a super martensitic stainless always contains less than 0.02% C.
Table 1 lists nominal compositions of CA-6NM and a few sample compositions of super
martensitic stainlesses from the review by Marshall and Farrar.
Unfortunately, matching composition filler metals available today do not match the
properties of the base metals, especially in toughness. So, to date, the manufacturers
of the super martensitic stainless steels generally recommend 22% Cr or 25% Cr
duplex stainless steel filler metals (types 2209 and 2553, for example).
116
Table 1Compositions of CA-6NM and

Some Supermartensitic Stainless Steels
Alloy C, % Mn, % Si, % Cr, % Ni, % Mo, % Cu, % N, % Ti, %
CA-6NM 0.04 0.5 0.3 13.0 4.0 0.4
Lean super- 0.01 1.2 0.2 11.0 1.5 0.5 < 0.012
martensitic
Medium super- 0.01 0.6 0.4 13.4 3.8 1.5 0.015

martensitic
High super- 0.01 0.4 0.2 12.0 6.5 2.5 0.1

martensitic
3.4 Bend Testing of Low Ductility Stainless?

(Follow-up to March 2002)
This question is a follow up to the March 2002 column concerning bend
? testing of a joint of 416 free-machining martensitic stainless steel to 304
austenitic stainless steel using 308L filler metal. The above mentioned joint was
unable to pass a bend test, and you pointed out that weld cracking very likely
occurred because 416 stainless is high in sulfur as a result of free machining.
There is also a large mismatch in strength between the martensitic stainless and
austenitic filler metal, resulting in a strain concentration at the weld interface
that makes passing a bend test difficult even if the joint is completed without
defects. However, the answer was couched in terms of passing an ASME 2T bend
test, which requires a minimum of 20% elongation in the materials, which is
unlikely for the 416 stainless. Can you tell me what elongation is required for
less ductile materials?
July 2002
I am indebted to Walt Sperko, Sperko Engineering Services, Greensboro, N.C., for

expanding upon the bend test requirements according to the ASME Code, as they
apply to materials having elongation requirements that are less than 20%. The follow-
ing commentary was supplied by Mr. Sperko.
The default bend test in ASME Section IX is one in which the radius of the man-
drel the specimen bends around is twice the test specimen thickness (2T). This
ratio of bend radius to thickness results in an approximately 20% elongation of the
outermost fibers of the specimen.
The ASME Code, however, permits welded construction using base metals that do
not exhibit 20% elongation. Most aluminum alloys, high-strength, low-alloy steels
in material group P-11, some copper alloys, and some titanium and zirconium
alloys fall in this category. Because ASME Subcommittee IX recognizes these mate-
117
rials are not sufficiently ductile to pass a 2T bend test, paragraph QW-466.1 allows
less severe testing by increasing the bend radius-to-thickness ratio for these alloys.
These ratios range from 4T to 16-1/2T.
Although Section IX is written for ASME Code applications, it is frequently speci-
fied for other construction outside ASME. When this happens, materials not
assigned P or S numbers may be used for construction, and the default bend ratio of
2T must be used. However, when those materials have ductility less than 20%, QW-
466.1 provides the following formula that allows one to take reduced base-metal
ductility into account.
%E = 100t/(A + t) (1)
where %E is the expected base metal tensile % elongation, t is the bend specimen
thickness, and A is the diameter of the mandrel (i.e., twice the bend radius).
If one has a fixture with a mandrel of some radius, one can solve the formula for t to
determine the required thickness of the specimens to achieve the correct radius. It
should be noted QW-466.1 sets a lower limit of 5% elongation.
The formula quoted by Mr. Sperko is independent of dimensional units as long as the
thickness of the bend specimen and the diameter of the mandrel are expressed in the
same units. If, for example, the base metal was required to meet 10% elongation, one
can easily solve the equation for the required ratio of mandrel diameter to test coupon
thickness, and the result is 9. That is, the mandrel diameter should be 9 times the
bend specimen thickness or the mandrel radius should be 4.5 times the bend specimen
thickness. So, if the bend specimen thickness is 3/8 in., the mandrel radius should be
1-11/16 in. Or, if the bend specimen thickness is 10 mm, the mandrel radius should be
45 mm. That means a new bend mandrel is needed for each % elongation below 20%.
Also, a new bend fixture may be required.
The alternative is to reduce the bend specimen thickness and use the same mandrel.
Following on Mr. Sperkos last paragraph, if the bend mandrel diameter is fixed at
1-1/2 in., Equation 1 can be solved for the bend specimen thickness by simple algebra.
The solution is given in Equation 2 below.
t = 1.5%E/(100 %E) (2)
Then, for example, if the elongation requirement is 10%, and the mandrel is fixed at
1-1/2 in., the required bend specimen thickness calculates to 1/6 in.
It is common to talk about a bend test in terms of the ratio of the bend mandrel radius
to the bend specimen thickness. For example, the standard ASME Code bend test is
called a 2T test because the bend mandrel radius is twice the bend specimen thickness
(3/4 in. radius versus 3/8 in. thickness). Taking the radius of the mandrel r as A/2,
Equation 1 can be solved for this ratio, r/t, with Equation 3.
r/t = 1/2 + 50/%E (3)
With Equation 3, a 4T bend can be seen to correspond to 11.1% elongation.
This doesnt entirely resolve the question of a proper bend test for a joint including
416 stainless because, as noted in the March column, ASTM A582/A582M sets no
elongation requirements for 416 stainless. One approach is to tensile test the
unwelded 416 to see what sort of elongation is achieved. Then, using this result with
the equation of QW-466.1, choose a reasonable bend mandrel diameter and specimen
118
thickness. Of course, a decision should not be based on only a single tensile test. At
least five tensile test results are needed to get a good picture of the tensile behavior of
the base metal.
3.5 Martensite Start Temperature Prediction for

Martensitic Stainless?
I see conflicting recommendations concerning preheat and interpass tem-
? peratures necessary for welding martensitic stainless steels. Many times I
see 600F (315C) minimum recommended (e.g., for surfacing of martensitic
stainless on continuous caster rolls), but I also see 250 or 300F (120 or 150C)
recommended for martensitic stainless steel like 410NiMo, which is an alloy
used for continuous caster roll surfacing. Is there a rational basis for selecting
preheat and interpass temperatures for martensitic stainless steels?
March 2004
Preheat and interpass temperature maintenance can be directed at two possible

issues, often, but not always, related. One is prevention of hydrogen-induced cracking
(HIC) in the weld metal and HAZ. With a low-carbon martensitic stainless steel (less
than 0.06% C) like 410NiMo, 250 or 300F is usually adequate for avoiding HIC in a
welded joint. However, with higher-carbon martensitic stainless steels, higher preheat
and interpass temperatures become necessary. Part of the reason for higher preheat
and interpass temperatures, especially in cladding operations such as continuous
caster rolls, has to do with the second issue, virtually zero ductility once the alloy has
transformed to martensite. This is especially of concern as the carbon content exceeds
0.10%. Cladding on continuous caster rolls see carbon pickup due to dilution, and the
alloys themselves are often well in excess of 0.10% C.
In cladding a continuous caster roll, or in fabricating a large martensitic stainless
steel weldment, the weld metal has to accommodate considerable shrinkage if crack-
ing is to be avoided. Martensitic stainless steel compositions have relatively low mar-
tensite start (MS) temperatures, usually below 600F. If the preheat and interpass
temperatures can be maintained above the MS temperature, the weld metal and the
austenitized portion of the HAZ can be retained as the austenite phase throughout the
welding operation.
Austenite, even high-carbon austenite, is very plastic (ductile) so that shrinkage
strains associated with welding, especially multipass welding, are easily accommo-
dated without cracking. Then, when the weldment is finished and allowed to cool,
there is a volume expansion as the austenite transforms to martensite, which reduces,
or even eliminates, tensile strains on the martensite. So it is desirable to know, or to
be able to predict, the MS temperature for a martensitic stainless steel in order to
select the preheat and interpass temperatures that provide this situation.
Information about MS temperatures for the many martensitic stainless steel composi-
tions is sometimes, but not always, available. There are a number of equations avail-
able in the published literature that predict the MS temperature for an alloy based on
119
composition. Keep in mind that predicting MS temperature is a bit like predicting the
weatherthere is considerable uncertainty in the activity. It is always better to have
the experimentally determined MS temperature than to try to calculate it. The pre-
dicting equations have varying degrees of complexity, ranging from a few simple coef-
ficients for a limited number of compositional variables to a large number of
coefficients for many compositional variables, or including coefficients for interactions
among compositional variables. Many of the predicting equations in the literature
were developed for low-alloy steels, and their applicability to martensitic stainless
steels is suspect.
An early formula for low-alloy steels by Payson and Savage was the basis for a later
formula for martensitic stainless steels by Irvine et al. Steven and Haynes and
Andrews separately developed predicting formulas for low-alloy steels, to which for-
mulas Kung and Rayment recommended adding factors for silicon and cobalt to obtain
good agreement with measured MS temperatures of high-alloy martensitic steels.
Gooch recommended a formula specifically for martensitic stainless steels. Self et al.
applied regression analysis to data from 16 different investigations to obtain a for-
mula including interactions among compositional factors. This listing is by no means
exhaustive.
The eight predicting equations I mention are given in Table 1. Each prediction is
developed from the steel or weld metal composition and the constant and coefficients
of Table 1 using the following pattern:
MS (C) = Constant + (%C) (C coefficient) = (%Mn) (Mn coefficient) + .....
Table 1Predicting Equations for Martensite Start Temperatures (C)
Coefficients
Reference Constant C Mn Si Cr Ni Mo W Co Other
Payson & Savage1 499 317 33 11 28 17 11 11
Irvine et al.2 551 474 33 11 17 17 21 11

Steven & Haynes3 561 474 33 17 17 21
Kung & Rayment5 561 474 33 7.5 17 17 21 +10

modification of
Steven & Haynes3
Andrews4 539 423 30.4 12.1 17.7 7.5
Kung & Rayment5 539 423 30.4 7.5 12.1 17.7 7.5 +10
modification of
Andrews4
Gooch6 540 497 6.3 10.8 36 46.6
Self7 526 354 29.7 31.7 12.5 17.4 20.8 *

* 1.34(%Ni %Cr) + 22.4(%Cr + %Mo) %C
120
Note that most of the coefficients are negative, so the predicted MS temperature is
always much less than the initial constant. The references for these equations are
listed at the end of this column (Refs. 18).
These predicting equations produce a variety of results. Table 2 lists nominal composi-
tions for several martensitic stainless steels and for one special alloy used for rebuild-
ing continuous caster rolls. Then it shows predicted MS temperatures according to
each of the equations of Table 1 for these alloys. It is probably safe to say that the Pay-
son and Savage equation should be discounted for martensitic stainless steels because
its predictions seem clearly out of line for all of these alloys. For example, the MS tem-
Table 2Predicted Martensite Start Temperatures

for Martensitic Stainless Steels
Type 410 414 410NiMo 420 422 431 440A Caster
Roll
UNS No. S41000 S41400 S41500 S42000 S42200 S43100 S44002 Alloy
C, % 0.11 0.08 0.03 0.20 0.22 0.10 0.70 0.18
Mn, % 0.50 0.50 0.75 0.50 0.75 0.50 0.50 1.10
Si, % 0.50 0.50 0.30 0.50 0.25 0.50 0.50 0.40
Cr, % 12.5 12.5 12.75 13.0 11.8 16.0 17.0 13.5
Ni, % 2.0 4.5 0.75 2.0 2.7
Mo, % 0.75 1.1 1.0
V, % 0.25 0.20
W, % 1.1
Co, % 2.0
Reference Predicted Martensite Start Temperature (C)
Payson1 92 68 28 50 47 37 221 23
Irvine2 264 245 200 213 171 176 92 129
Steven3 280 260 213 229 196 191 76 143
Kung5 of 276 256 211 225 194 187 80 160

Steven3
Andrews4 326 303 264 282 259 253 22 211
Kung5 of 322 300 262 278 257 249 18 228

Andrews4
Gooch6 347 289 219 297 271 242 5 200
Self7 331 265 163 320 286 218 302 190
121
perature for 410 stainless steel has been experimentally determined to be about
330C (660F), and for 420 stainless steel, about 300C (575F). This illustrates the
risks in applying predicting equations without knowing their originthe Payson and
Savage relation, as noted above, was developed for low-alloy steels, not for stainless
steels.
Given the differing results predicted above, a strategy is needed for making a selec-
tion of minimum preheat and interpass temperatures. I suggest opting for the most
conservative temperaturethat least likely to allow martensite to form before weld-
ing is finished. That would be the highest MS temperature predicted for any given
alloy.
Another use for the prediction of MS temperatures concerns cooling the weldment
before PWHT. It should be remembered that PWHT does not accomplish tempering of
martensite if the martensite has not yet formed. So, in general, the weldment should
be cooled to or below the martensite finish (MF) temperature before PWHT. The MF
temperature is generally considered to be about 100C (180F) below the MS tempera-
ture, or even lower. So, in selecting the temperature to which a weldment should be
cooled before undertaking PWHT, an appropriate choice is at least 100C below the
MS temperature. If a conservative choice (least risky) for a maximum temperature, to
which a weldment is to be cooled before PWHT, is to be based on the equations for pre-
diction of the MS temperature given in Table 1, then that choice would be 100C below
the lowest of the predicted MS temperatures. Note, however, that all of the equations,
except that of Self et al., seem to produce unbelievably low MS temperature predic-
tions for the very high-carbon 440A composition.
Knowing the MS temperature, or predicting it by these various equations, can be
quite useful in selecting preheat and interpass temperatures for martensitic stainless
steels. It is also useful for determining the temperature to which a martensitic stain-
less steel weldment should be cooled before PWHT.
References
1. Payson, P., and Savage, C. H. 1944. Martensite reactions in low-alloy steels.
Transactions of ASM International 33: 261275.
2. Irvine, K. J., Crowe, D. J., and Pickering, F. B. 1960. The physical metallurgy of
12% chromium steels. Journal of the Iron and Steel Institute 195(8): 386405.
3. Steven, W., and Haynes, A. G. 1956. The temperature of formation of martensite
and bainite in low-alloy steels. Journal of the Iron and Steel Institute 183(8): 349
359.
4. Andrews, K. 1965. Empirical formulae for the calculation of some transformation
temperatures. Journal of the Iron and Steel Institute 203: 721727.
5. Kung, C. Y., and Rayment, J. J. 1982. An examination of the validity of existing
empirical formulae for the calculation of MS temperature. Metallurgical
Transactions A 13A(2): 328331.
6. Gooch, T. G. 1977. Welding martensitic stainless steels. Welding Institute Research
Bulletin 18(12): 343349.
7. Self, J. A., Olson, D. L., and Edwards, G. R. 1984. The stability of austenitic weld
metal. Proceedings of IMCC, Kiev, Ukraine.
122
8. Heat Treaters GuideStandard Practices and Procedures for Steel. 1982. Eds. P.
M. Unterweiser, H. E. Boyer, and J. J. Kubbs, pp. 424, 432. ASM International,
Materials Park, Ohio.
3.6 410 with 410NiMo Filler Metal, 1400F PWHT?

We have been repairing cast pump bodies, fittings and valves of CA-15
? stainless steel for years, and have been welding attachments of matching
410 wrought stainless steel to the castings using 410NiMo filler metal. We have
always used postweld heat treatment (PWHT) at 1100 to 1150F for several
hours, depending upon thickness. These have been very successful products for
us. We just received an order from a new customer who insists on PWHT at
1350 to 1400F. Is it advisable to use the 410NiMo filler metal for this applica-
tion?
November 2006
CA-15, 410, and 410NiMo are all martensitic stainless steels, with air hardening
characteristics. That means that even slow cooling from high temperatures where the
metal is austenitic will result in formation of virtually 100% martensite. Filler metal
of 410NiMo has a long history of successful application in joining and rebuilding 410
stainless steel base metals. It is lower in carbon content than the 410 base metal, so
that the as-welded base metal and HAZ can be substantially harder and stronger than
the weld metal. But the addition of about 0.5% Mo retards softening in PWHT so that,
after the 1100 to 1150F (593 to 621C) PWHT, the 410 base metal and the 410NiMo
weld have virtually the same mechanical properties. Table 1 compares the composi-
tion of 410 and its cast equivalent (CA-15) with the 410NiMo filler metal composition.
As-cooled from high temperature, 410 has very high tensile strength, exceeding 190
ksi (1310 MPa). However, it is not often used in this condition. It is normally tempered
to soften it and improve ductility. The mechanical properties after tempering (or
PWHT) are given in Table 2, along with those for 410NiMo filler metal. Note that the
mechanical properties of ER410NiMo are not specified in AWS A5.9, Specification for
Bare Stainless Steel Welding Electrodes and Rods, because the wire is usable with a
number of processes including GMAW, GTAW, and SAW. Instead, AWS A5.9 refers the
user to the mechanical properties given in AWS A5.4, Specification for Stainless Steel
Electrodes for Shielded Metal Arc Welding, for the corresponding covered electrode as
those which can be expected from the wire in whatever welding process it is used.
From Table 2, you can clearly see that 410NiMo filler metal is a good match for the
base metals after the original PWHT.
The new PWHT at 1350 to 1400F (732 to 760C) changes everything. The 410 and
CA-15 base metals do not start reforming austenite until the temperature exceeds
about 1450F (790C), so they will be softened further (tempered) in the new PWHT
temperature range as compared to the old PWHT range. The new PWHT will reduce
the tensile strength of the 410 or CA-15 to much lower levels. This high temperature
treatment will drop the tensile strength of either the 410 or CA-15 base metal to
around 70 ksi (480 MPa).
123
Table 1Composition of 410 and CA-15

Base Metals and 410NiMo Filler Metals
UNS
Material Number %C %Mn %P %S %Si %Cr %Ni %Mo
410 S41000 0.08 1.00 0.040 0.030 1.00 11.5 N.S. N.S.
ASTM A276 to max. max. max. max. to
0.15 13.5
CA-15 0.15 1.00 0.04 0.04 1.50 11.5 1.00 0.50

ASTM A743 max. max. max. max. max. to max. max.
14.0
E410NiMo-XX W41010 0.12 1.0 0.04 0.03 0.90 11.0 4.0 0.40
AWS A5.4 max. max. max. max. max. to to to
12.5 5.0 0.70
ER410NiMo S41086 0.06 0.6 0.03 0.03 0.5 11.0 to 4.0 0.4
AWS A5.9 max. max. max. max. max. 12.5 to to
5.0 0.7
Table 2Mechanical Properties of 410 and CA-15

Base Metals and 410NiMo Weld Metal
Tensile, ksi Yield, ksi %

Material Heat Treatment (MPa) (MPa) Elongation
410 Tempered, Temperature 100 (690) min. 80 (550) min. 15 min.

Not Specified
CA-15 Tempered at 1100F 90 (620) min. 65 (450) min. 18 min.

(593C) min.
E410NiMo-XX Tempered at 1100 to 110 (760) min. N.S. 15 min.

1150F (593 to 621C)
But the effect on the 410NiMo weld metal will be quite different. Note, from Table 1,
the high nickel content of 410NiMo filler metal. This nickel depresses the tempera-
ture at which austenite starts to form on heating. Austenite will form on heating
410NiMo weld metal above about 1150F (595C). When heated into the new PWHT
temperature range of 1350 to 1400F, the weld metal will become almost entirely aus-
tenite in the furnace. There will be no tempering of the weld metal in the furnace.
Then removal from the PWHT furnace and air cooling will cause the weld metal to
transform to new martensite, with tensile strength on the order of 150 ksi (1035
MPa). This means there will then be a very large mismatch between the properties of
the base metal and the weld metal, and the weld metal will be quite brittle.
124
In short, the 410NiMo filler metal is inappropriate for PWHT in the 1350 to 1450F
temperature range. Instead, I suggest you use matching 410 filler metal for the 410
and CA-15 base metals, to obtain matching response to heat treatment and matching
properties after this PWHT.
3.7 Bend Test Failures in Low Carbon 410 Welds?

We are trying to qualify a procedure for welding CA15 castings with E410-
? 16 electrodes. The welds are required to be below 22 Rockwell C (RC) hard-
ness and pass a side bend test. We have no trouble with the hardness require-
ment after 1150 to 1200F (620 to 650C) postweld heat treatment (PWHT),
but we have been failing bends. The bends break in the weld metal, but we can
see no evidence of defectsno cracks or incomplete fusion. The weld metal just
doesnt seem to be very ductile. How can this happen when the PWHT provides
hardness below 22 RC?
January 2009
CA15 is essentially the cast equivalent of 410, so that you have a matching filler
metal. Table 1 lists the composition requirements for CA15 (Ref. 1) and E410-16 (Ref.
2). Note that neither the CA15 nor the E410-16 has a minimum carbon requirement,
only a maximum. I expect that the root cause of your problem is in the lack of a mini-
mum carbon content for the weld metal, as this is not the first time Ive encountered
this problem. To understand this, it is helpful to examine the Balmforth diagram
Figure 1 (Ref. 3).
The Balmforth diagram makes predictions about the amount of ferrite and martensite
in as-welded stainless steel welds as a function of composition. Fully martensitic com-
positions are on the left of the diagram, and fully ferritic compositions are on the
right. In the center of the diagram is a wedge-shaped region where some ferrite and
some martensite coexist in the weld, and Type 410 weld metals tend to fall in this
region. Within this wedge-shaped region is a series of lines labeled with the predicted
percent ferrite, increasing from left to right, and, more importantly, decreasing
sharply from bottom to top.
Table 1Composition Requirements for CA-15 and E410-16
Chemical Composition, Weight % (Single Values are Maximum)
Material C Mn P S Si Cr Ni Mo Cu
CA15 0.15 1.00 0.04 0.04 1.50 11.5 to 14.0 1.00 0.50
E410-16 0.12 1.0 0.04 0.03 0.90 11.0 to 13.5 0.7 0.75 0.75
125
Figure 1The Balmforth Diagram (Ref. 3)
It is important to appreciate that martensite is considerably harder and stronger than

ferrite, and that in weld metal, the microstructure tends to be columnar. This means
that when ferrite and martensite coexist, these two phases tend to be oriented in par-
allel columns roughly perpendicular to the weld surface. Then when a strain is
applied to the weld metal, as in bending, the strain tends to concentrate in the ferrite,
while the martensite does not yield. If the weld metal is almost all ferrite, this doesnt
matter much, from the point of view of passing a bend test. Likewise, if the weld metal
is almost entirely martensite, it doesnt matter much because the ferrite tends to not
be continuous and the martensite must eventually yield. But if there is more than
about 10% ferrite in a mostly martensitic weld, then the ferrite tends to be continuous
and strain concentration in the ferrite results in low ductility and failure in a bend test.
Examining Figure 1, it can be noted that any roughly 12% Cr composition of E410-16
will lie pretty much along the vertical line extending upward from the horizontal axis
(chromium equivalent) at the value 12. Along this line, a variety of microstruc-
tures can exist, realistically including more than 50% ferrite to less than 10% ferrite.
It is the upper part of the line where compositions of less than 10% ferrite exist, and
these are compositions that will provide the ductility necessary to pass the bend test.
The vertical axis (nickel equivalent) indicates a very strong effect of carbon content.
As the carbon content increases, the ferrite content decreases. With a multiplier of 35
for carbon indicated in the nickel equivalent, a small change in carbon content has a
rather large effect on ferrite content. An increase of 0.04% C would increase the nickel
equivalent by 1.4%, and thereby could reduce the ferrite content, for example, from
about 25% to less than 10%, all other composition variables remaining unchanged.
126
I expect that the filler metal you have been using has on the order of 0.05% carbon,
which is what I have encountered previously. I strongly suggest that you obtain filler
metal with at least 0.08% carbon. That should provide enough martensite as-welded
so that there will not be continuous ferrite networks. You may then find that you will
have to increase your PWHT temperature to 1250F (675C), or even higher, in order
to reduce the weld hardness to below 22 RC.
You might wonder why the lack of a minimum carbon content does not interfere with
all-weld-metal ductility in the AWS classification test for E410-16. The AWS A5.4 clas-
sification test requires at least 20% elongation, which should pass a bend test, but the
PWHT is different. The PWHT for classification is done at 1350 to 1400F (730 to
760C). At this higher temperature, the martensite becomes very soft and its proper-
ties are little different from those of the ferrite. But that does not happen under your
1150 to 1200F PWHT.
References
1. ASTM A743/A743M-06, Standard Specification for Castings, Iron-Chromium, Iron-
Chromium-Nickel, Corrosion Resistant, for General Application. ASTM International,
West Conshohocken, Pa.
2. AWS A5.4/A5.4M:2006, Specification for Stainless Steel Electrodes for Shielded
Metal Arc Welding. American Welding Society, Miami, Fla.
3. Balmforth, M. C., and Lippold, J. C. 2000. A new ferritic-martensitic stainless steel
constitution diagram. Welding Journal 79(12): 339-s to 345-s.
127
WELDING STAINLESS STEELQUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CHAPTER 4DUPLEX
Chapter 4
Welding of Duplex Stainless Steels
4.1 What are Super Duplex Stainlesses?

I have seen mention of super duplex stainless steels. What distinguishes
? these from ordinary duplex stainless steels?
January 2000
The distinction is somewhat arbitrary. A duplex stainless steel is generally an Fe-Cr-

Ni-Mo-N alloy whose composition is balanced to obtain approximately equal amounts
of ferrite and austenite in the microstructure. It has been experimentally observed
that alloys higher in chromium, molybdenum and nitrogen have improved resistance
to pitting corrosion in chloride-containing environments, as compared to their leaner
counterparts. Pitting resistance, such as measured by determining a critical pitting
temperature (CPT) in the ASTM G48 Method A ferric chloride test, has been found to
correlate reasonably well with a Pitting Resistance Index (PREN), which is defined as
follows:
PREN = %Cr + 3.3 %Mo + 16 %N
The convention today is to refer to duplex stainless steels whose PREN is greater than
40 as super duplex stainless steels. Practically, this generally means a duplex stain-
less steel containing about 25% Cr, nearly 4% Mo and nearly 0.3% N.
4.2 Welded 2205 Head Cracked After Annealing?

We fabricated a dished head by submerged arc welding 1-in. 2205 duplex
? stainless steel plates together with ER2209 wire and a basic flux. As the
head was cold-formed, we annealed at 1925F (25F), as required in ASTM
A480, and water quenched. Because the head warped a little, we tried to true it
up afterward, but almost the instant the press started to true up the head, the
weld cracked. Why, and what can we do about this next time?
February 2000
129
CHAPTER 4DUPLEX WELDING STAINLESS STEELQUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Type 2205 duplex stainless steel is nominally 22% Cr, 5% Ni, 3% Mo and 0.15% N.
ER2209 matches this composition in every respect except that the nickel content is
nominally 9%. The welding wire is deliberately made that way to limit the ferrite con-
tent in the as-welded condition. The filler metals for SMAW and FCAW are similarly
high in nickel for the same reason.
ASTM A480 specifies annealing at 1900F (1040C) minimum. No maximum tempera-
ture is given. This is where the problem lies.
Annealing at 1925F (1050C) is perfectly adequate for the 5% nickel base metal, but
it is inadequate for the 9% nickel weld metal. The higher nickel content of the weld
metal raises the maximum temperature at which sigma phase is stable. Sigma phase
is an intermetallic compound of chromium and iron (with some molybdenum) that
severely embrittles the steel. Sigma phase forms from ferrite during heating of the
steel to temperatures below the annealing temperature, occurring most rapidly at
about 1650F (900C). In the base metal, this sigma transforms back to ferrite during
holding at 1900F, and the water quench is used to prevent sigma reformation during
cooling from the annealing temperature. But in the higher nickel weld metal, the
sigma that forms during heating remains stable even at 1950F (1065C). Annealing
at 2000F (1095C) or higher is necessary to dissolve the sigma in 9% Ni weld metal.
This phenomenon was demonstrated ten years ago (see, D. J. Kotecki, Heat treatment
of duplex stainless steel weld metals, Welding Journal 68(11): 431-s to 441-s). A state-
of-the-art report on intermetallic compounds in duplex stainless steels, by Dr. Leif
Karlsson, can be found in WRC Bulletin 438, published January 1999.
The solution to your problem is to anneal the weldment at a temperature of 2000F or
higher. Given the precision of temperature control of commercial furnaces, Id suggest
setting the furnace at 2050F (1120C). After water quenching from this temperature,
you should be able to true up the head without difficulty.
4.3 2205 to UNS S31803 vs. S32205?

I am trying to develop weld procedure qualifications for duplex stainless
? steel Alloy 2205 (UNS S31803) using SMAW, GMAW, and SAW. I am
encountering trouble with high ferrite in the weld heat-affected zone (HAZ). The
customers specification is for 70% ferrite maximum in the HAZ, determined by
metallographic examination (point counting) on weld cross sections. The first
trial weldments often exceeded this limit. What can be done about it?
April 2000
First of all, I should point out metalIographic determination of ferrite is not a very
precise method. There is a large problem with reproducibility of results. Unfortu-
nately, for HAZ determinations, there is no available alternative.
Alloy 2205 is nominally 22% Cr, 5% Ni, 3% Mo with some nitrogen. (More will be said
about the nitrogen later.) As plate or pipe, this steel microstructurally consists of
approximately half ferrite and half austenite. However, in the as-cast form, the ferrite
is much higher. Duplex stainless steels such as 2205 solidify as 100% ferrite, and aus-
tenite forms only during cooling. Hot working and annealing at temperatures in
130
excess of 1900F (1040C) promote diffusion of alloying elements, which increases the
amount of ferrite that transforms to austenite. However, welding causes the HAZ very
close to the weld interface to transform back to 100% ferrite at temperatures just
below melting, and rapid cooling associated with welding does not allow time for diffu-
sion to produce extensive austenite. So the HAZ near the weld interface tends to be
higher in ferrite content than the remainder of the steel. High-heat-input welding can
slow the cooling rate to a certain extent and allow for more diffusion and formation of
austenite, but the tendency for high ferrite in the HAZ along the weld interface
remains. This high ferrite tends to reduce the ductility, toughness and corrosion resis-
tance of the weldment.
This situation would also affect the weld metal, but filler metal designers long ago fig-
ured out increased nickel (typically 9%) in the filler metal would produce an as-welded
deposit of higher austenite content. The increased nickel is the norm today in filler
metals for duplex stainless steels such as ER2209 wire, which would normally be cho-
sen for 2205 base metal.
Increased nickel in the filler metal does not help the situation in the HAZ. It is there-
fore necessary to modify the base metal composition slightly. This is where nitrogen
comes into the picture. Nitrogen is a very small atom as compared to iron, chromium,
nickel and molybdenum, so it can diffuse much more rapidly than these other ele-
ments. And nitrogen is a powerful promoter of austenite. A little extra nitrogen can
have a dramatic effect on the ferrite content in a weld HAZ. Some years ago, it was
common to attach UNS S31803 to Alloy 2205, with a specified nitrogen range of 0.08
to 0.20%. The problem with this was that base metals in the lower half of this nitrogen
range tended to have high ferrite in the HAZ. The composition range of UNS S31803
has not been changed, but the alloy is no longer designated as Alloy 2205. Instead,
ASTM A240 and similar specifications redefined Alloy 2205 as UNS S32205, with a
required nitrogen range of 0.14 to 0.20%. There were minor adjustments in some
other alloy elements as well. It is no longer correct to refer to UNS S31803 as Alloy
2205.
I expect your procedure qualification is being run on older Alloy 2205, perhaps rem-
nants from a previous project, which was originally produced under the UNS S31803
composition limits. The solution to your problem very likely is to use current Alloy
2205 (UNS S32205) for your procedure qualification. The required higher nitrogen
should produce lower ferrite in the HAZ.
4.4 Welding Super Duplex S32750 with No

Intermetallics?
We have a contract to fabricate a vessel of superduplex stainless steel UNS
? S32750. We have worked with duplex stainless S32205 and S31803 in the
past, without much difficulty. But S32750 is new for us. The contract requires us
to develop welding procedures (SMAW, GMAW, and SAW) with 25 9 4 N L filler
metals so that the weldments pass mechanical property requirements, ferrite
content requirements, and are free of intermetallics. This requirement about
intermetallics is new for us.
131
Everything about our procedures has passed the requirements except that inter-
metallics are giving us trouble. We dont have capability in-house to determine
them, so we sent the weld cross sections to two outside laboratories. Both
reported finding some intermetallics, on the order of 1% by volume. We revised
the procedures to reduce heat input to about 15 kJ/in., and that reduced, but did
not eliminate, the intermetallics, according to the laboratories. We think that
further heat input reduction would run the risk of incomplete fusion defects and
is very uneconomical. What can we do?
March 2005
I think that you and your customer need to sit down and have a reality check. But lets
start at the beginning.
S32750 is commonly referred to as a 25%Cr superduplex stainless steel. Its composi-

tion range, as specified in ASTM A240, is given in Table 1, along with corresponding
filler metal compositions from ISO 3581 (covered electrodes, E 25 9 4 N L) and ISO
14343 (bare solid wires and rods, S [SAW], W [GTAW], or G [GMAW] 25 9 4 N L) stan-
dards. Note that these filler metals are not yet included in the AWS A5.4 or A5.9 spec-
ifications. Also note that the filler metals are deliberately higher in nickel content
than the base metal, but otherwise are of matching composition. The higher nickel is
essential to obtain a proper balance of ferrite and austenite in the as-welded condition.
The strength requirements are quite high, including 80 ksi (550 MPa) yield strength
for both the base metal and filler metal.
Due to the high chromium and molybdenum, there is a significant tendency for both
the weld metal and the HAZ to form a number of different intermetallic compounds,
commonly lumped together under the term sigma. The two most important interme-
tallic compounds in superduplex stainless steel weldments are sigma phase (approxi-
Table 1Composition of S32750 Base Metal and Corresponding Filler Metals
Alloy C Mn P S Si Cr Ni Mo N Cu W
S32750 0.030 1.20 0.035 0.020 0.80 24.0 6.0 3.0 0.24 0.50 N.S.
26.0 8.0 5.0 0.32
E 25 9 4 N L 0.04 2.5 0.030 0.025 1.2 24.0 8.0 2.5 0.20 1.5 N.S.
27.0 11.0 4.5 0.30
S, W, or 0.03 2.5 0.03 0.02 1.0 24.0 8.0 2.5 0.20 1.5 1.5
G 25 9 4 N L 27.0 10.5 4.5 0.30
All the elements in %.
All values maximum except as noted.
132
mately FeCr, although Mo also may be present) and chi phase (approximately
Fe36Cr12Mo10 or Fe3CrMo). These intermetallics form most rapidly at temperatures
around 800C (1470F).
An outstanding review of intermetallics and other precipitates in duplex and superdu-

plex stainless steels has been prepared by Karlsson (Ref. 1) under the auspices of the
International Institute of Welding, Commission IX. A very concise Position Statement
on the presence of intermetallics in duplex and superduplex stainless steel weldments
was prepared in parallel to the Karlsson review by van Nassau and Meelker (Ref. 2).
The concern with intermetallics in super duplex stainless steels centers upon loss of
toughness (due to the brittleness of the intermetallics) and loss of corrosion resistance
(due to removal of Cr and Mo from the surrounding metal as the intermetallics form).
However, as both Karlsson and van Nassau point out, the presence of small amounts
of intermetallics does not necessarily mean that the properties of the weldment are
damaged. Both references note that avoidance of any intermetallics in a superduplex
stainless steel weldment is very difficult, and Karlsson cites several examples where a
few percent of intermetallics were found to be not harmful to properties.
This is where the reality check between you and your customer enters the picture.
Given the experiences described by Karlsson and by van Nassau, I think you should
expect to find small amounts of intermetallics in your superduplex stainless steel
weldments. I dont think that you can realistically satisfy a requirement for no inter-
metallics, even if you adhere rigorously to the normal recommendation to limit heat
input to 0.5 to 1.5 kJ/mm (13 to 38 kJ/in.) when welding these steels.
The alternative is to base acceptance of a welding procedure upon performance of the

resulting weldment instead of on metallographic appearance of the weldment. Since
the detrimental effects of excessive intermetallics are most observed in the form of
loss of toughness and loss of corrosion resistance, these are the properties to be evalu-
ated. Both Karlsson and van Nassau recommend this approach.
Toughness requirements should be determined by the expected service conditions.

Karlsson notes that Charpy V-notch impact requirements of 45 J (34 ft-lb) at 30C
(22F), 34 J (25 ft-lb) at 40C (40F), or 27 J (20 ft-lb) at 46C (50F) have been
used successfully. Corrosion testing is most commonly the ASTM G48, Method A, test
for pitting in ferric chloride at either 35 or 40C (95 or 104F), with the acceptance
criteria being no pitting and no significant weight loss.
I urge you and your customer to reconsider the acceptance criteria for your welding
procedure in the light of the two references cited herein. Otherwise, neither of you will
be satisfied, and the vessel is unlikely to be completed in a timely fashion.
References
1. Karlsson, L. 1999. Intermetallic phase precipitation in duplex stainless steels and

weld metals: Metallurgy, influence on properties, welding and testing aspects. WRC
Bulletin 438. Welding Research Council, Shaker Heights, Ohio.
2. van Nassau, L., and Meelker, H. 1999. Position statement on the specification of
metallographic properties of weldments in duplex and superduplex stainless steel.
Welding in the World 43(2): 11, 12.
133
4.5 Excessive Fill Pass Heat Input in Groove Weld

in Zeron1 100 Sigma + Secondary Austenite,
Fails Impacts?
We have been trying to qualify a procedure for welding 3/8-in. superduplex
? stainless steel (UNS S32750) plate using 1/8-in. AWS A5.4:2006 Class
E2595-15 covered electrodes. The procedure qualification requirements include
meeting Charpy V-notch impact test lateral expansion of 15 mils minimum at
40F. All other test results have met requirements, but we have failed the lat-
eral expansion requirement twice. We thought we were doing all of the right
thingslow heat input (11 kJ/in.) and lots of small beads to obtain grain refine-
ment. The joint preparation is 60-deg included angle, 1/8-in. root face and 1/16-
in. root opening. We put eight passes on the top side, back-ground to sound metal
and put five more passes on the root side, all with 225F maximum interpass
temperature. Ferrite measurements on the weld averaged about 35 FN, which
seems normal. What is wrong?
March 2007
Although superduplex stainless steels and their weld metals are high-strength steels
(typically 120 ksi [830 MPa] tensile strength), they do not follow the same rules as are
followed by low-alloy steels of the same strength level with regard to grain refinement
for optimum toughness, and I believe that is where the root of your problem lies.
To begin, Table 1 shows the chemical compositions of the S32750 base metal and of the
E2595-15 filler metal. I note that the AWS A5.4 standard has been revised in 2006
and newly includes this alloy. Both the base metal and the filler metal are considered
superduplex stainless steels, but their compositions are slightly different. Both
include very high nitrogen contents, which helps to explain their high strengths.
Notably different is that E2595-15 contains deliberate tungsten addition in place of
1. Zeron 100 is a registered trademark of RA Materials.
Table 1Composition Requirements for

S32750 Plate and E2595-15 Filler Metal
Chemical Composition (wt-%)
Alloy C Mn Si Cr Ni Mo Cu W N
S32750 0.030 1.20 0.80 24.0 6.0 3.0 0.50 0.24

max. max. max. to to to max. to
26.0 8.0 5.0 0.32
E2595-15 0.04 2.5 1.2 24.0 8.0 2.5 0.4 0.4 0.20
max. max. max. to to to to to to
27.0 10.5 4.5 1.5 1.0 0.30
134
some molybdenum, and it contains a deliberate copper addition that is absent from
the S32750. It is common for E2595-15 filler metal to be used for welding S32750 base
metal; I see nothing wrong with your filler metal choice.
The numerous weld passes in the relatively thin plate produce multiple reheat cycles
for portions of the weld metal microstructure, and this can lead to formation of vari-
ous precipitates within the ferrite phase. After our initial contacts, I obtained a sam-
ple of one of the procedure qualification test plates, and examined it
metallographically. Figure 1 shows the optical microstructure, and extensive precipi-
tation can be seen as dark specks within the ferrite phase. Figure 2, produced with a
scanning electron microscope (SEM) at much higher magnification, shows the precipi-
tates as angular particles. No effort was made to identify the exact nature of the pre-
cipitates, but their presence is believed to be the cause of the poor impact test results
observed. These precipitates were observed to be absent from the last pass deposited.
The very low heat input of 11 kJ/in. (0.4 kJ/mm), which results in an excessive num-
ber of weld passes with multiple reheat cycles for portions of the weld metal, was con-
sidered to be the cause of the precipitation. A more appropriate procedure consisting
of 2538 kJ/in. (1.01.5 kJ/mm), mainly by slowing the travel speed, was suggested for
use with the 1/8-in. (3.2 mm) electrodes. This should complete the joint with only four
passes on the first side and a single pass on the back side after back-grinding the root.
Follow-up
The inquirer welded a new procedure qualification test plate following the suggestion
of higher heat input. The resulting weld metal was found to be virtually free of precip-
itates and the Charpy V-notch impact test results all comfortably exceeded the
requirement for 15 mils (0.38 mm) lateral expansion at 40F (40C).
Acknowledgments
Peter van Erk, Lincoln Smitweld B.V., Netherlands, collaborated in understanding the
problem and providing the suggested welding procedure. John McLane, The Lincoln
Electric Co., Cleveland, Ohio, performed the metallographic and SEM examinations.
Note the dark precipitates in the ferrite areas. Note angular precipitates within ferrite areas.
Figure 1Microstructure of Figure 2Higher Magnification of

Reheated E2595-15 Weld Metal Reheated E2595-15 Weld Metal
135
4.6 PWHT of Duplex Cladding?

We have received some large valves of low-alloy steel whose interiors were
? weld overlaid with ER2209 duplex stainless steel in some cases, and with
ER2594 superduplex stainless steel in other cases. To meet hardness limitations
in the heat-affected zone (HAZ) of the low-alloy steel, the supplier performed a
postweld heat treatment (PWHT) for 2 h at 620C (1150F) after the weld over-
lay was completed. It is my understanding that PWHT is not advisable for
duplex stainless steel. Should we be concerned about the effects of this PWHT on
the duplex stainless steel weld overlay?
March 2010
In my opinion, you should be concerned. The 620C PWHT temperature is within the
temperature range where sigma phase and other intermetallic compounds can form
from the ferrite in duplex stainless steel weld metal. Sigma is the most common, and
it is rather normal to lump all the intermetallic compounds that form above 600C
under the term sigma phase, as I do in this article. Further, in heating to that tem-
perature, the weldment must pass through the temperature range where alpha prime
(a chromium-rich ferrite) can precipitate within the ferrite of the duplex stainless
steel weld metal.
Table 1 lists the chemical compositions of ER2209 and ER2594 filler metals as shown
in AWS A5.9/A5.9M:2006, Specification for Bare Stainless Steel Electrodes and Rods.
Note that ER2594 contains more chromium and generally more molybdenum than
ER2209, so its weld metal will be more sensitive to precipitation of alpha prime and
sigma phase (i.e., these phases tend to form more quickly in higher-alloy weld metal).
You didnt indicate whether the overlay was done by gas metal arc, submerged arc, or
another process, but that doesnt change the concerns to any significant extent.
Alpha prime and sigma phase have similar effects on the weld metal properties. Both,
being hard, make the metal brittle. And both, because they contain more Cr than the
Table 1Chemical Composition Limits (wt-%)

of ER2209 and ER2594 Filler Metals
Filler
Metal C Mn P S Si Cr Ni Mo N Cu W
ER2209 0.03 0.50 0.03 0.03 0.90 21.5 7.5 2.5 0.08 0.75
to to to to to
2.00 23.5 9.5 3.5 0.20
ER2594 0.03 2.5 0.03 0.02 1.0 24.0 8.0 2.5 0.20 1.5 1.0
to to to to
27.0 10.5 4.5 0.30
Note: Single values are maxima.
136
matrix, must get that Cr from the matrix by diffusion, which reduces the corrosion
resistance of the matrix. Sigma phase contains nearly 50% Cr, and alpha prime con-
tains more than 90% Cr.
I must emphasize that I cannot be certain that the PWHT has caused significant dam-
age, because formation of both sigma phase and alpha prime requires significant time
for diffusion to take place, but the possibility is very real. You should test the welding
procedure and exact PWHT thermal cycle (including both heating rate and cooling
rate) for evidence of damage. There are four tests you can conduct to evaluate damage
due to PWHT.
One way is to examine the microstructure using ASTM A923, Standard Test Methods
for Detecting Detrimental Intermetallic Phase in Duplex Austenitic/Ferritic Stainless
Steels, to look for intermetallic compounds. There are some shortcomings to this
approach. It does not address the alpha prime possibility, only the sigma possibility.
And finding traces of intermetallic compounds does not automatically mean the weld
overlay is not serviceable. At the same time, you can measure the microhardness in
the ferrite areas as compared to the microhardness without PWHT. A significantly
harder result after PWHT would indicate alpha prime if you cant find sigma.
A second way is to conduct the ASTM G48A ferric chloride pitting test before and after
PWHT. A drop in critical pitting temperature (CPT) of 10C or more as a result of
PWHT would indicate damage, as would failure to satisfy a specified CPT. The diffi-
culty with this test is that you will need to remove all traces of substrate and diluted
weld metal from the test coupon(s) before exposure, or you will be finding pits in the
lower-alloyed metal without evaluating the final surface of the overlay. In service,
only the final surface is exposed, so it is misleading to test lower layers of metal.
A third way is to perform longitudinal face bend tests of the overlay surface. This will
assess the ductility loss due to the PWHT. I like this test because it is sensitive to low
levels of both alpha prime and sigma. Failure to pass the test using the normal 2T
bend radius would indicate damaged overlay material.
A fourth way is to conduct Charpy V-notch impact tests at a modest temperature

perhaps 0C (32F) or even at room temperature. Both ER2209 and ER2594 should
comfortably exceed 27 J (20 ft-lbf) at these temperatures if they are not damaged by
the PWHT. Figure 1 shows test results, from the literature, of 2209 weld metal given
various PWHTs. All combinations of time and temperature to the right of the two
curves in Figure 1 produced less than 27 J at room temperature. Note that there is a
gap between the two curves. The gap means that PWHT temperatures in that range
were not tested. The upper curve is for sigma damage, and the lower curve is for alpha
prime damage. Your PWHT temperature of 620C for 2 h (120 min) is in the gap, so
it is not certain that your material is damaged. That is why you need to test to be
certain.
For future fabrication of such valves, or any other situation where duplex stainless
overlay is to be applied to a substrate requiring PWHT, I suggest applying a buffer
layer of 309L or similar austenitic stainless steel, then conducting the PWHT before
applying the duplex stainless overlay. Then, the HAZ hardness limitation of the base
metal can be met (provided that the duplex stainless application does not penetrate
through the buffer layer), and the duplex stainless overlay can be put into service in
the as-welded condition.
137
Note: Less than 27 J (20 ft-lbf) CVN was observed to the right of the two curves (Ref. 1).
Figure 1Limits of 27 J (20 ft-lbf) Charpy V-Notch Impact Energy at Room

Temperature After PWHT of 2209 Duplex Stainless Steel Weld Metal
Reference
1. Karlsson, L., Ryen, L., and Pak, S. 1995. Precipitation of intermetallic phases in
22% Cr duplex stainless weld metals. Welding Journal 74(1): 28-s to 40-s. Who also
quote data from Nilsson, J. O., and Liu, P. 1991. Material Science and Technology,
7(9): 853862.
4.7 Resistance Welding of Lean Duplex LDX 21011?

We have been making an assortment of sheet metal fabrications by resis-
? tance welding 304L and 316L stainless steel for many years. Recently, it
has been proposed to substitute a duplex stainless steel, LDX 2101. But I have
heard that duplex stainless steels are not suitable for resistance welding. Is this
true?
May 2010
Duplex stainless steels present a challenge for resistance welding because of the very
rapid cooling rates normally associated with the process. Very rapid cooling tends to
1. LDX 2101 is a registered trademark of Outokumpu Stainless.
138
retain to room temperature most of the ferrite that forms during solidification. Further,
chromium nitrides tend to precipitate in the ferrite if nitrogen does not have time to
diffuse to austenite. The nearly 100% ferrite tends to make the welds relatively brit-
tle, and the chromium nitrides can be very detrimental to corrosion resistance.
This is not to say that resistance welding is totally unusable for duplex stainless
steels, only that required weld properties need to be carefully evaluated. In 1994, I
coauthored a review paper on welding processes for duplex stainless steels (Ref. 1)
presented at the Fourth International Conference on Duplex Stainless Steels, held in
Glasgow, Scotland. In it, I noted that, at that time, resistance welding and other weld-
ing processes with inherently rapid cooling rates such as laser beam welding and elec-
tron beam welding had to be considered immature processes for duplex stainless
steels. However, duplex stainless steels have evolved considerably since that time,
particularly in the direction of higher nitrogen content, which promotes more rapid
formation of austenite so that some austenite can be formed, especially in lean alloys,
under conditions of rapid cooling. And, in particular, the very lean alloy LDX 2101
(UNS 32101) did not exist at that time. I will refer to this alloy as 2101 for brevity
from this point forward.
Table 1 lists the composition ranges of 2101 and two older duplex stainless steels,
2304 and 2205, as found in the ASTM A240 standard for stainless steel plate, sheet,
and strip. Of these, 2205 is probably the most common of the duplex stainless steels
today. It should be noted that two composition ranges are given for 2205, the older
UNS S31803 (before year 2000) and the current UNS S32205. It can be noted from
Table 1 that 2101 is lower in chromium content than 2304 or 2205, lower in molybde-
num content than 2205, and higher in nitrogen content than either 2304 or 2205. It
can also be noted that 2101 is considerably higher in manganese content than the
other alloys, which enhances its solubility for nitrogen. As a result of all these factors,
2101 has the ability to form austenite more quickly than the older alloys.
Table 1Composition Ranges of 2304, 2205,

and 2101 Duplex Stainless Steels
Composition Range (wt-%) (single value is a maximum)

Common UNS
Name Number C Mn P S Si Cr Ni Mo Cu N
2304 S32304 0.030 2.50 0.040 0.030 1.00 21.5 3.0 0.05 0.05 0.05
to to to to to
24.5 5.5 0.60 0.60 0.20
Former S31803 0.030 2.00 0.030 0.020 1.00 21.0 4.5 2.5 0.08
2205 to to to to
23.0 6.5 3.5 0.20
Current S32205 0.030 2.00 0.030 0.020 1.00 22.0 4.5 3.0 0.14
2205 to to to to
23.0 6.5 3.5 0.20
2101 S32101 0.040 4.0 0.040 0.030 1.00 21.0 1.35 0.10 0.10 0.20
to to to to to to
6.0 22.0 1.70 0.80 0.80 0.25
139
I am indebted to Alexander Thulin, research engineer at the Avesta Research Centre

of Outokumpu Stainless AB, Sweden, for the information and microstructures that
follow. In his as yet unpublished work, he examines resistance welding of duplex
stainless steels and the use of the resistance welding machine to perform a very brief
postweld heat treatment (PWHT) immediately after the welding cycle in order to try
to increase the amount of austenite and decrease the chromium nitrides in the resis-
tance welds. He also informed me that both 2304 and 2101 duplex stainless steels are
today being successfully applied after resistance welding.
Figure 1 shows the ferrite contents of resistance spot welds in 2-mm (0.079-in.) 2304,
2205, and 2101 as-welded and after PWHT on the resistance welding machine. The
ferrite is measured by metallographic image analysis. It can be seen that, in the as-
welded (single pulse) condition, the 2205 and 2304 welds contain about 95% ferrite (or
only about 5% austenite) while the higher-nitrogen 2101 welds contain nearly 20%
austenite. In all cases, the welding current was applied for 300 ms. For PWHT on the
resistance welding machine, a 200 ms delay after the weld cycle was followed by the
PWHT current (lower than the welding current) applied for 2 s. This PWHT is much
too short to produce any sigma phase formation in these three alloys.
The result of the PWHT cycles can be seen in the reduction of the ferrite content to
about 90% (10% austenite) for the 2205 and 2304 alloys. But the ferrite content of the
higher-nitrogen 2101 alloy was reduced to about 75% (25% austenite). The higher aus-
tenite in the 2101 welds is more favorable from the point of view of weld ductility and
corrosion resistance. Figure 2 compares the as-welded and PWHT microstructures of
the 2205 and 2101. In this figure, the light etching portion of the microstructure is
austenite, and the dark etching portion is ferrite, with chromium nitride precipitation
Figure 1Ferrite Content of 2205, 2304, and 2101 As-Welded and

After Short PWHT on the Resistance Welding Machine
140
(A) 2205, As-Welded (B) 2205, 2-Second PWHT
(C) 2101, As-Welded (D) 2101, 2-Second PWHT
Note: Only small areas of chromium nitrides (darkest etching areas) remain in the 2101 spot welds
after the PWHT.
Figure 2Microstructures of Resistance Spot Welds in Duplex Stainless Steels
in the darkest areas. It can easily be seen that the darkest areas of chromium nitride
precipitation are much smaller and more scattered in the 2101 weld after PWHT.
It should be pointed out that, in all cases, a peel test of the resistance spot welds
resulted in tearing out of the weld nugget, which is normally considered a successful
test. So the very-high ferrite contents in the as-welded condition are not necessarily
detrimental to the mechanical performance of the welds. However, the corrosion resis-
141
tance of the spot welds is of concern when there is extensive chromium nitride precip-
itation. Postweld heat treatment of resistance spot welds on the resistance welding
machine offers a means of significantly lessening the presence of chromium nitrides in
the 2101 alloy. Pickling can be used to improve the corrosion resistance of resistance
spot welds, but it should be recognized that a resistance spot weld always has a crev-
ice around it. If 304L is providing satisfactory service with a crevice, 2101 is likely to
do so also.
From this it can be concluded that usable resistance spot welds can indeed be made at
least in 2101 duplex stainless steel. It is important, in any such application, to evalu-
ate the mechanical property and corrosion resistance requirements for the weldment
vs. the properties provided by the weldment.
Reference
1. Kotecki, D. J., and Hilkes, J. L. P. 1994. Welding processes for duplex stainless
steels. Fourth International ConferenceDuplex Stainless Steels, Conference
Proceedings, Vol. 2, Paper KVI, TWI, Abington, Cambridge, UK.
4.8 Arc Strikes on Duplex Stainless?

An inspector recently noticed an errant arc strike from an E2209-16 elec-
? trode inside a 2205 duplex stainless steel tank we are fabricating. The
inspector insisted that we not only grind off the bump but also insisted that we
excavate (by grinding) below the surface at least 1/16 in. This made the base
metal thickness less than the specified minimum, so we had to deposit a repair
weld to rebuild the excavation from the arc strike. I can understand such a
requirement when the steel is hardenable, but I cannot understand such a
requirement for a stainless steel that is not hardenable. I think the inspector
should have allowed us to just grind the bump smooth at the arc strike. Was the
inspector justified in insisting on the excavation?
July 2010
In a word, yes.
You are correct that 2205 base metal (nominally 22% Cr, 5% Ni, 3% Mo, 0.18% N) is
not hardenable, so one wouldnt be worried about martensite formation in the heat-
affected zone (HAZ) of the arc strike that could lead to hydrogen-induced cracking.
That is a serious concern with carbon steels and low-alloy steels, but not with duplex
stainless steels. But there is another concern that justifies the inspectors require-
ment that you remove not only the deposit from the arc strike but also the HAZ of the
arc strike.
The concern stems from the fact that, when duplex stainless steel is heated to a tem-
perature close to the melting temperature, the metal transforms to virtually 100% fer-
rite. This happens in the HAZ. Under normal weld cooling conditions, the HAZ cools
slowly enough that austenite can nucleate and grow in the HAZ. This requires time
142
for the nitrogen in the ferrite to diffuse to the growing austenite phase regions. But
under the extremely rapid cooling conditions associated with an arc strike, the HAZ of
the arc strike is quenched and nearly 100% ferrite remains until cooling progresses to
a temperature that is too low for austenite to nucleate and grow. Then the nitrogen
trapped in the ferrite is no longer soluble in the ferrite, but the nitrogen has no auste-
nite it can reach by diffusion. So, on further cooling, the nitrogen precipitates as chro-
mium nitrides within the ferrite.
The issue of arc strikes on duplex stainless steel was investigated a number of years
ago by Sargeant et al. (Ref. 1). They showed that, in the HAZ of the arc strike, very
large ferrite grains are found, with just traces of austenite along the ferrite grain
boundaries. Then, just beside the grain boundary austenite, the ferrite grains are free
of chromium nitrides. Farther from the grain boundary austenite, the ferrite grains
are loaded with chromium nitride precipitates. In fact, the microstructure of the HAZ
is remarkably similar to that of the resistance welds in 2205 shown in my May 2010
Stainless Q&A column.
Chromium nitrides have the approximate chemical formula Cr2N, which means that
one atom of N will remove 2 atoms of Cr from the ferrite. The effect of Cr removal is
compounded by the difference in atomic weight between Cr and Nthe atomic weight
of Cr is about 52 while that of N is about 14, so the Cr atom is about 3.7 times as
heavy as the nitrogen atom. Therefore, on a weight-percent basis, formation of chro-
mium nitrides removes about 7.4 times as much Cr as N from the ferrite. In addition,
Cr, being a larger atom than N, diffuses much more slowly than N. The result is that
the ferrite around each nitride particle is severely depleted in Cr, and therefore is sus-
ceptible to corrosion.
Sargeant et al. further examined the tendency for pitting corrosion to occur at an arc
strike in 2205, and found that the HAZ containing chromium nitride precipitates is
highly susceptible to pitting. In their study, they determined that the arc strike area
needed to be excavated by grinding to a minimum depth of 0.89 mm (0.035 in.) below the
original surface of the plate in order to remove the pitting-sensitive HAZ of the arc strike.
Duplex stainless steels like 2205 are commonly used in environments where pitting
tends to occur, so removal of the pitting-sensitive HAZ as well as the arc strike deposit
seems prudent. Your inspector demanded excavation at the arc strike to nearly double
the depth determined by Sargeant et al., no doubt to be on the conservative side. I
expect that your inspector was either aware of this study or his requirement for exca-
vation was set by someone else aware of the study. I think the inspector was correct in
demanding the excavation.
Arc strikes are not isolated to shielded metal arc welding. In the same study, Sargeant
et al. examined gas tungsten arc (GTA) metal arc strikes, as can occur either when AC
high-frequency arc initiation is not used, or when a welder has difficulty with AC H-F
arc initiation because the tungsten electrode has become contaminated. I note here
that addition of on the order of 2% nitrogen to the argon shielding gas in GTA welding
is often recommended to counteract tendencies for nitrogen loss from the weld pool
during GTAW. While this is beneficial to the weld, it is somewhat damaging to the arc
initiation characteristics of the tungsten electrode when AC H-F is used for arc initia-
tion. In my experience, addition of nitrogen to the GTAW shielding gas normally
requires more frequent dressing of the tungsten electrode for effective arc initiation
using AC H-F than when pure argon is used as the shielding gas.
143
Sargeant et al. found that the pitting-sensitive depth of the GTAW arc strike HAZ was
less than with SMAW in their study, but they still needed to excavate 0.34 mm (0.013
in.) to remove the pitting-sensitive HAZ.
I personally have witnessed the results of arcing between a 2205 stainless vessel and
a copper block used for the current return (ground) to the power source when the cop-
per block was not clamped and a worker inadvertently stumbled over the copper block
while welding was occurring. This produced a trail of arc strikes on the stainless as
the copper block slid along. All of these arc strikes had to be excavated. Good practice
is to rigidly clamp the current return to the workpiece to prevent this sort of event
from occurring.
From the above discussion, it should be apparent that precautions should be taken to
prevent arc strikes on duplex stainless steel. (In fact, precautions should be taken to
prevent arc strikes on any metal.) If an arc strike occurs on a duplex stainless steel,
the arc strike should be excavated to a depth sufficient to be sure that any deposited
metal at the arc strike, and the HAZ, have been removed.
Reference
1. Sargeant, D. A., Bradshaw, R., Walker, M. I., and Cottis, R. A. 1994. Investigation
of the effects of arc strikes on duplex stainless steel using scanning reference
electrode techniques. Proceedings of the Fourth International ConferenceDuplex
Stainless Steels, Vol. 1, Paper 98. Woodhead Publishing, Cambridge, UK.
4.9 Filler Metal Selection for Annealed Duplex

Stainless Steel?
Our foundry produces duplex stainless steel castings to ASTM A890
? Grades 4A, 5A, and 6A. From time to time, castings require weld repair.
A890 does not require annealing after welding if the repair is minor (no leak on
hydrostatic testing, and the repair is less than 20% of the wall thickness). How-
ever, major repairs (leaks or greater than 20% of wall thickness) require anneal-
ing at temperatures above 1900F (1040C) after the weld repair is completed.
A890 does not set ferrite limits for the weld metal, but customers usually specify
30% or even 35% ferrite, minimum, including for the weld repair. Ferrite percent
is determined by point counting (ASTM E562), image analysis (ASTM E1245), or
magnetic methods (normally Fischer Feritscope). The problem is that commer-
cially available weld filler metals that match these castings almost always pro-
vide weld metal ferrite content below 30% by any of these methods. What can we
do about this?
January 2012
First, better identification of the casting alloys for those not familiar with ASTM A890
is appropriate. Table 1 lists the composition limits of the three casting alloys, along
with their nearest wrought equivalents from ASTM A240. It is obvious that Grade 4A
is essentially 2205, Grade 5A is essentially 2507, and Grade 6A is essentially Zeron
100. The matching filler metals, as given in AWS A5.4/A5.4M:2006, Specification for
144
Table 1Duplex Stainless Steel Casting Alloy

Compositions with Wrought Equivalents
ASTM A890 A240 A890 A240 A890 A240
Grade or
Common Zeron
Name 4A 2205 5A 2507 6A 100
UNS No. J92205 S32205 J93404 S32750 J93380 S32760
ACI
Designation CD3MN N.S. CE3MN N.S. CD3MWCuN N.S.
% C, max. 0.03 0.030 0.03 0.030 0.03 0.030
% Mn, max. 1.50 2.00 1.50 1.20 1.00 1.00
% P, max. 0.04 0.030 0.04 0.035 0.030 0.030
% S, max. 0.020 0.020 0.04 0.020 0.025 0.010
% Si, max. 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.80 1.00 1.00
% Cr 21.023.5 22.023.0 24.026.0 24.026.0 24.026.0 24.026.0
% Ni 4.56.5 4.56.5 6.08.0 6.08.0 6.58.5 6.08.0
% Mo 2.53.5 3.03.5 4.05.0 3.05.0 3.04.0 3.04.0
% Cu 1.00 max. N.S. N.S. 0.50 max. 0.51.0 0.501.00
%W N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. 0.51.0 0.501.00
%N 0.100.30 0.140.20 0.100.30 0.240.32 0.200.30 0.200.30

Stainless Steel Electrodes for Shielded Metal Arc Welding (Ref. 1), are listed in Table
2, where E2209-XX is a match for Grade 4A or 2205, E2594-XX is a match for Grade
5A or 2507, and E2595-XX is a match for Grade 6A or Zeron 100.
It should be noted that, for all three matching filler metal classifications, while the
other elements match between base metal and filler metal, the nickel content of the
matching filler metal is higher than that of the corresponding base metal, whether
cast or wrought. This has been a long-standing practice in the filler metal industry out
of demand for highly ductile weld metal with Charpy V-notch impact properties of at
least 20 ft-lb (27 J) at 40F (40C) or lower, in the as-welded condition. This practice
is not unique to AWS A5.4 (Ref. 1). It is also the practice of ISO 3581 and other filler
metal standards, including those for flux cored electrodes and for solid wire elec-
trodes. But it is also part of your problem.
In the as-welded condition, I normally recommend determination of ferrite by Ferrite
Number because the ferrite is very irregular in shape, and reproducibility of measure-
145
Table 2Duplex Stainless Steel Filler Metal

Compositions from AWS A5.4/A5.4M
Classification E2209-XX E2594-XX E2595-XX
% C, max. 0.04 0.04 0.04
% Mn 0.52.0 0.52.0 2.5 max.
% P, max. 0.04 0.04 0.03
% S, max. 0.03 0.03 0.025
% Si, max. 1.00 1.00 1.2
% Cr 21.523.5 24.027.0 24.027.0
% Ni 8.510.5 8.010.5 8.010.5
% Mo 2.53.5 3.54.5 2.54.5
%Cu 0.75 max. 0.75 max. 0.41.5
%W N.S. N.S. 0.41.0
%N 0.080.20 0.200.30 0.200.30

ment is very poor. Annealing of the weld metal causes the ferrite to become more reg-
ularly shaped and coarser (see Figure 1), so that determination of weld metal percent
ferrite by point counting or image analysis is much more reliable and reproducible
than it is in the as-welded condition. When the weld metal is annealed, the ferrite con-
tent often, but not always, is reduced compared to that of the as-welded condition
(Ref. 2). In general, the ferrite reduction due to annealing is slight for high-nickel
filler metal, but is very significant for low-nickel filler metal. For example, the 2209
filler metal (8.3% Ni) shown in Figure 1 measured 46 FN as-welded, and 43 FN after
the anneal. But in the same reference, a similar filler metal, except containing 6.1%
Ni, dropped from 88 FN as-welded to 61 FN annealed. It seems clear that the Ferrite
Number overstates the percent ferrite in duplex stainless steel weld metal, by a factor
of perhaps 1.4, depending upon the specific iron content (Ref. 3). While no effort was
made to measure percent ferrite in the reference, I would expect that, after annealing,
the high-nickel weld metal contains about 31% ferrite, while the low-nickel filler
metal contains about 44% ferrite.
The volume of duplex stainless steel filler metal consumed is far greater for use in the
as-welded condition than for use in the annealed condition. As a result, the filler
metal manufacturers have standardized on designs for the as-welded condition, and
they design in general for the range of 30 to 50 FN. Assuming that the filler metal tar-
get ferrite is 40 FN, that the Ferrite Number overstating the percent ferrite is approx-
imately as stated above, and that the ferrite decreases slightly as a result of
146
(A) 2209 Weld Metal As-Welded (B) Annealed 4 h at 2000F (1090C)
Figure 1Same Weldment, Kallings Etch,

Original Magnification 800X
annealing, weld metal ferrite after annealing should be in the area 25 to 30%, which is
exactly what you described.
It seems to me that you have two alternatives. One is to find a filler metal manufac-
turer willing to produce filler metal specially designed to meet your requirement of 30
or 35% ferrite, minimum, in the annealed condition. Such a filler metal will not meet
any existing national or international filler metal specification of which I am aware.
Unless you can find a manufacturer with that already in stock, you are likely to expe-
rience long lead times and sticker shock. I do not know of a manufacturer who pro-
duces a standard product of that sort in your three alloy grades.
The second alternative is to seek relief from your customer. The main engineering rea-
son for the ferrite requirement is to guarantee resistance to chloride stress corrosion
cracking. To get relief, you would have to develop corrosion test results demonstrating
that weld metal with the lower ferrite content you are finding has chloride stress cor-
rosion cracking resistance equivalent to that of higher ferrite weld metal. Then you
will have to convince your customers to change their requirements. I think that will
be neither easy, nor quick.
I suggest you seek a source of lower nickel filler metal.
References
1. AWS A5.4/A5.4M:2006, Specification for Stainless Steel Electrodes for Shielded

Metal Arc Welding. American Welding Society, Miami, Fla.
2. Kotecki, D. J. 1989. Heat treatment of duplex stainless steel weld metals. Welding
Journal 68(11): 431-s to 441-s.
3. Kotecki, D. J. 1997. Ferrite determination in stainless steel weld metalsAdvances

since 1974. Welding Journal 76(1): 24-s to 37-s.
147
4.10 High Ferrite with ER2553 for Ferralium1 255?

We are welding Ferralium 255 duplex stainless steel base metal using gas
?tungsten arc welding (GTAW) with argon gas shielding and ER2553 filler
metal. We are required by contract to achieve 25 to 60% ferrite, measuring by
ASTM E562-08, Standard Test Method for Determining Volume Fraction by
Systematic Manual Point Count. We have been experiencing a little more than
60% ferrite in the qualification test joints. What can we do to reduce the ferrite
content?
July 2012
You have two options. One is to change the filler metal. The other is to add nitrogen to
the shielding gas.
Historically, ER2553 was proposed to the AWS A5D Subcommittee in the early 1980s
to match the composition of the Ferralium 255 base metal (UNS 32550), before the
value of enriched nickel filler metal for duplex stainless steels was fully appreciated.
Because the mechanical properties and corrosion properties are acceptable with this
composition in the inert gas shielded processes (GTAW and gas metal arc welding
(GMAW)), there has been little incentive to change the ER2553 composition.
But in the flux shielded welding processes (shielded metal arc welding (SMAW), flux
cored arc welding (FCAW), and submerged arc welding (SAW)), which produce higher
weld metal oxygen contents, the mechanical properties, particularly Charpy V-notch
impact tests, tend to be low with the low-nickel filler metal. Accordingly, the composi-
tion of the 2553 filler metals in the SMAW specification (AWS A5.4) and in the FCAW
1. Ferralium 255 is a registered trademark of Langley Alloys Ltd.
Table 1S32550 and Corresponding Filler Metal Compositions
Composition Range (wt-%, single value is a maximum)

Specification
and Alloy C Mn P S Si Cr Ni Mo Cu N
ASTM A240 0.04 1.50 0.040 0.030 1.00 24.0 4.5 2.9 1.50 0.10
UNS S32550 27.0 6.5 3.9 2.50 0.25
AWS A5.9 0.04 1.5 0.04 0.03 1.00 24.0 4.5 2.9 1.5 0.10
ER2553 27.0 6.5 3.9 2.5 0.25
AWS A5.4 0.06 0.5 0.04 0.03 1.00 24.0 6.5 2.9 1.5 0.10
E2553-XX 1.5 27.0 8.5 3.9 2.5 0.25
AWS A5.22 0.04 0.5 0.04 0.03 0.75 24.0 8.5 2.9 1.5 0.10
E2553TX-X 1.5 27.0 10.5 3.9 2.5 0.25
148
specification (AWS A5.22) are adjusted to higher nickel content. Table 1 provides the
composition requirements for the base metal and the filler metals.
Nickel is the only element that is significantly different among the filler metals. The
higher nickel is deliberately used to cause austenite formation at higher temperature
and obtain lower ferrite in the as-welded condition. Recalling the discussion in
the January 2012 Stainless Q&A column, it might be appreciated that the ER2553
filler metal is optimum for castings such as ASTM A890 Alloy CD3MCuN (the cast
equivalent of Ferralium 255) that are to be annealed after welding. Annealing
the low-nickel weld metal reduces the ferrite content to approximately that of the
casting.
Obviously, if you are GTA welding, you cannot use filler metals designed for SMAW or
FCAW. It is rather well known that nitrogen (the other important austenite-promot-
ing element beside nickel) tends to escape from the weld pool in GTAW, and the addi-
tion of nitrogen to the shielding gas can be used to offset this.
Argon with 2% nitrogen (AWS A5.32M/A5.32:2011 (ISO 14175:2008 MOD) Class N2-
ArN-2) shielding has been widely used for this purpose. This approach, with ER2553
filler metal, is likely to be successful in reducing the weld metal ferrite content.
You should be aware, however, that the addition of nitrogen to the shielding gas will
cause the tungsten electrode to deteriorate more rapidly than it does with pure argon
shielding gas. You are likely to find that you will need to regrind the tungsten more
frequently to maintain a stable arc and easy arc initiation.
The other alternative is to change the filler metal. There are two possibilities. One is
the AWS A5.9 Class ER2594, which is designed for the superduplex stainless steels
S32750 (commonly known as 2507) and S32760 (commonly known as Zeron 100),
both specified in ASTM A240. The other is the ISO 14343-A Class W 25 9 3 Cu N L,
which essentially matches the Ferralium 255 composition except for higher nickel
content. The compositions of these two filler metal classifications are shown in Table
2. Both have been recommended for Ferralium 255 base metal. With both higher
nickel and higher nitrogen than the base metal, both filler metals can be expected to
provide weld metal of less than 60% ferrite. And both filler metals will exceed the
mechanical property requirements and corrosion resistance requirements of the base
metal. You are likely to find that the ER2594 filler metal is more readily available.
Table 2Alternate Filler Metals for Ferralium 255
Composition Range (wt-%, single value is a maximum)

Specification
and Alloy C Mn P S Si Cr Ni Mo Cu N W
AWS A5.9 0.03 2.5 0.03 0.02 1.0 24.0 8.0 2.5 1.5 0.20 1.0
ER2594 27.0 10.5 4.5 0.30
ISO 14343 0.03 2.5 0.03 0.02 1.0 24.0 8.0 2.5 1.5 0.10
W 25 9 3 Cu N L 27.0 11.0 4.5 2.5 0.20
149
4.11 Why is Nitrogen Essential to Duplex Stainless

Steel Weld Metal?
I have been told that nitrogen is an essential ingredient in duplex stainless
? steel weld metal. But I understand that nitrogen is only an accidental
impurity in other stainless steel weld metal. Is this correct, and if so, why is it
essential in duplex stainless steel?
January 2013
You have been told correctly. There are two factors involved. The first has to do with
pitting corrosion resistance. There is a well-accepted formula for a Pitting Resistance
Index (PREN).
PREN = %Cr + 3.3(%Mo + %W/2) + 16%N
As the PREN increases, the pitting resistance increases. Duplex stainless steels are
often used in chloride-containing environments, including the higher alloy grades in
seawater. The higher alloy grades of duplex stainless steel, often referred to as super-
duplex, have a PREN greater than 40. As you can see, the coefficient for nitrogen in
the above formula is much larger than for any other element. The superduplex stain-
less steels typically contain about 0.25%N, or more.
But pitting corrosion resistance is only part of the story concerning nitrogen in duplex
stainless steels and their weld metals. In weld metal in the as-welded condition, nitro-
gen is the critical element for obtaining a proper phase balance between ferrite and
austenite. There remains a lot of discussion about what amount of ferrite (remainder
austenite) is appropriate for best properties, but most engineers will agree that the
range of 30 to 70 Ferrite Number or 22 to 50% ferrite (higher ferrite content is allowed
with inert gas- shielded processes) provides the best combination of properties, partic-
ularly corrosion resistance, toughness, and ductility.
Nitrogen is critical because it is the only useful alloying element that is an interstitial
atom rather than a substitutional atom. Interstitial atoms are much smaller than the
matrix alloy element atoms iron, chromium, nickel, molybdenum, and possibly tung-
sten. As a result, nitrogen can diffuse more than 100 times faster than the other
atoms. Nitrogen promotes austenite formation by diffusing out of the ferrite as the
virtually 100% ferrite weld metal cools at temperatures above 1040C (1900F). Under
ordinary arc welding cooling conditions, only nitrogen diffuses fast enough to partition
appreciably between ferrite and austenite. This was very well demonstrated in the
work of Ogawa and Koseki (Ref. 1).
Unfortunately, when the work of Ogawa and Koseki was published in the Welding
Journal, color printing in the Research Supplement was not in use, and the element
partitioning was illustrated by color-coded maps, so it was difficult to appreciate
exactly what was going on in the black and white reproductions, and I think very few
people did appreciate it. However, Ogawa and Koseki also presented their work a year
later in Commission IX of the International Institute of Welding, as IIW Document
IX-1600-90, and I was fortunate enough to obtain a copy with color. Three figures
150
extracted from that work serve to illustrate the importance of nitrogen, and these are
reproduced herein.
Figure 1 shows the microstructure of the 2205 duplex stainless steel base metal as
hot-rolled. The lighter etching phase is the austenite and the darker etching phase is
the ferrite. Then it includes Cr, Ni, Mo, and N distributions obtained by a scanning
electron microscope (SEM) of exactly the same area as the microstructure, color coded
so that red indicates high concentration, yellow to green indicates nominal composi-
tion concentration of each element, and blue indicates low concentration. The nominal
composition is also given in the figure. It is easily seen that Cr and Mo are concen-
trated in the ferrite, while Ni and N are concentrated in the austenite. It is notewor-
thy that, in the case of nitrogen, the blue color indicates virtually zero percent
nitrogen in the ferrite. That is, the nitrogen has almost entirely left the ferrite in favor
of the austenite during hot-rolling.
Figure 2 shows the microstructure and alloy element distribution of an autogenous
GTA weld made in the same base metal, containing 0.12% nitrogen, using the same
color coding. Austenite appears only as particles along the grain boundaries of the
very large ferrite grains that formed during solidification, and as a few scattered par-
ticles within the ferrite grains. Then the color maps of Cr, Ni, and Mo indicate virtu-
ally no partitioning of those alloy elementsthey are distributed at virtually the
nominal composition level throughout the microstructurebut the nitrogen map
clearly shows nitrogen concentrated in the grain boundary austenite.
(A) (B) (C)
(D) (E)
Figure 12205 Base Metal as Hot-Rolled

(A) Microstructure; (B) 22% Cr; (C) 6% Ni; (D) 3% Mo; (E) 0.12% N
151
(A) (B) (C)
(D) (E)
Figure 2Autogenous 2205 GTA Weld Metal, As-Welded

In the ferrite immediately beside the grain boundary austenite, the blue color indi-
cates virtually zero nitrogen as the nitrogen there had enough time to diffuse to the
austenite. Farther from the grain boundary austenite, the yellow to green color indi-
cates near-nominal nitrogen concentration on average. In fact there are scattered
chromium nitride particles that appear as dark specks in the microstructure (Figure
2A) that formed within the ferrite when the nitrogen could not escape from the ferrite
to the austenite during cooling. Even though there is 0.12% N present in this composi-
tion, the phase distribution is not acceptable; the weld is brittle.
Figure 3 shows the microstructure and alloy element distribution of an autogenous

GTA weld made in an identical base metal composition except that the nitrogen is
increased to 0.18%. As in the case of the 0.12% N weld metal, austenite appears as
particles outlining the original ferrite grain boundaries, but there are also numerous
austenite plates throughout the interior of the ferrite grains. Then the color-coded
maps of Cr, Ni, and Mo indicate only very slight partitioning of these elements (most
clearly seen in the Mo distribution where the grain boundary austenite regions are
more clearly blue). But the nitrogen partitioning is completethe ferrite regions are
all blue while the austenite regions are all red. The higher nitrogen of the Figure 3
weld metal as compared to the Figure 2 weld metal made the as-welded weld metal
ductile by producing much higher austenite content.
152
(A) (B) (C)
(D) (E)
Figure 3Autogenous 2205 GTA Weld Metal, As-Welded

In practice, filler metal manufacturers tend to include extra nickel to improve tough-
ness and assist in the development of austenite, but the nitrogen is the essential alloy
element for providing weldability.
Reference
1. Ogawa, T., and Koseki, T. 1989. Effect of composition profiles on metallurgy and
corrosion behavior of duplex stainless steel weld metals. Welding Journal 68(5):
181-s to 191-s.
153
WELDING STAINLESS STEELQUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CHAPTER 5DISSIMILAR
Chapter 5
Welding of Dissimilar Alloys
5.1 Why Cant I Weld 304L to Carbon Steel with

Carbon Steel Filler?
When welding low-alloy steel to carbon steel, I normally choose a mild-
? steel filler metal such as E7018 based on the theory that the weld need be
no better than the lesser of the two base metals. But when I weld 304L stainless
steel to carbon steel, I am told to use 309L stainless steel filler metal. Whats
wrong with just matching the lesser of the two base metals and again selecting
E7018 or an equivalent mild steel filler metal?
August 1999
The problem with matching the lesser of the two base metals by using E7018 is that
the weld wont match in the case of 304L to carbon steel. A little calculation is
required to work this out. A typical dilution level in a weld is on the order of 30 to
40%. That means the weld metal, for example, in a single pass fillet weld, consists of
30 to 40% base metal and correspondingly 70 to 60% filler metal. If the weld ties in
equally to the two base metals, then half of the dilution (15 to 20% of the weld metal)
will come from the carbon steel side, and half of the dilution (15 to 20% of the weld
metal) will come from the 304L stainless steel side.
It is the 15 to 20% of the weld metal that comes from the 304L side that causes the
problem when using mild steel filler metal for this purpose. 304L typically contains
19% chromium and 10% nickel. The weld metal will contain 15 to 20% of this alloy.
That means that the weld will contain 2.8 to 3.8% chromium and 1.5 to 2.0% nickel.
Such an alloy, even with rather low carbon content, is highly hardenable and will
transform to martensite under almost any normal weld cooling condition. This mar-
tensite will be very strong, but also very brittle. It is the brittleness that is the prob-
lem. A small amount of plastic deformation will produce cracking in the weld. The
cracking could occur even without external loading or deformation due to the action of
diffusible hydrogen after welding. So it is generally not advisable to use a mild steel
filler metal for joining 304L stainless to carbon steel.
155
CHAPTER 5DISSIMILAR WELDING STAINLESS STEELQUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Using 309L filler metal gets around this problem by producing a non-hardenable
austenitic stainless steel weld metal. Then the weld metal matches the mechanical
properties of the base metal, including its ductility.
5.2 For Welding 409 to A36, Do I Have to Use 309L?

It is normally recommended to use 309 or 309L filler metal for joining mild
?steel to 304L stainless. Is this also a good choice for joining 409 stainless to
mild steel, such as in attaching an exhaust pipe hanger (mild steel) to an
exhaust pipe (409)?
September 1999
Type 409 stainless is nominally 12% chromium with perhaps 1/2% titanium. It is a
low carbon materialtypically 0.04% or so. Since you mention automobile exhaust
systems, I assume that the welding is to be done by gas-metal arc welding (GMAW)
with short circuiting transfer, which would probably mean you would use ER309LSi
filler metal. With GMAW-S on thin material such as an exhaust pipe, we could expect
about 30 to 40% dilution.
Even with the maximum expected dilution of 40% (half from the mild steel and half
from the 409), the weld metal, using ER309LSi, would be mainly austenite with some
ferrite. This is a desirable microstructure because it is highly resistant to hot crack-
ing. So ER309LSi (or any other filler metal from the 309 group of alloys) should pro-
vide satisfactory results.
However, there is also an economic aspect to this joint, especially if you plan to make a
lot of these welds, as might be done in the automobile industry. There the question
might be phrased differently: What is the lowest cost filler metal that will join 409 to
mild steel safely?
A joint of 12% Cr steel to mild steel is one of the few situations where stainless steel
might be joined (quite safely) to mild steel, using mild steel filler metal. Assuming a
maximum dilution of 40%, with half of that dilution (20%) coming from the 409, a single-
pass weld metal would contain no more than 2.4% Cr and 0.1% Ti. That composition
would, in terms of hardenability, lie somewhere between 1-1/4 Cr-1/2 Mo steel and 2-1/4
Cr-1 Mo steel. It is a low-alloy steel. In thin sections, such as attaching a hanger to an
exhaust pipe, there would be little likelihood of cold cracks in the expected microstruc-
ture of ferrite and bainite when such a weld was made, even without preheat. The
weld could be expected to have considerable ductility, though perhaps not as much as
the base metals have. If you adopt this approach with GMAW-S, I suggest using
ER70S-3 filler metal, which would provide less hardenability due to lower Mn than
would ER70S-6. And ER70S-3 is certainly less costly than ER309LSi.
A word of caution about using ER70S-3 for joining 409 stainless to mild steel: You may
need to take precautions, such as putting up a sheet metal shield, to prevent spatter
from the GMAW-S weld from sticking to the 409 stainless. Mild steel spatter that
sticks to the 409 will rust in service, and it may cause the 409 to rust preferentially
where the spatter sticks.
156
5.3 Stainless to Galvanized?

Im trying to weld galvanized steel to 304 stainless with 309 filler metal.
? The welds are cracking on the stainless side. Whats wrong?
October 1999
When you say cracking is occurring on the stainless side, I assume you mean that the
cracking is alongside the weld in the stainless heat-affected zone. This is a rather
common form of liquid metal embrittlement. The galvanized coating on the carbon
steel consists mainly of zinc metal. Because zinc has a low melting temperature, it
melts ahead of the arc and wets on to the stainless side. It not only wets on the surface
of the stainless but also along the grain boundaries inside of it. The liquid film along
the grain boundaries persists after the arc has passed, and the shrinkage strains, as
the weld cools, tear the liquid film apart, producing the cracking.
The best way to eliminate the cracking is to get rid of the zinc before welding. This
should be done on all surfaces of the galvanized steel that will be within about 1/2 in.
of the weld. Some use sandpaper to remove the zinc. This can be effective, but its hard
to be sure the zinc is totally removed. A better method is to dip the edge to be welded
into a dilute acid solution, perhaps 5% hydrochloric acid in water. The zinc will sizzle
as it dissolves. When the metal stops sizzling, the zinc is gone. You can then weld
without cracking.
Of course, where the zinc is gone, the mild steel may rust in service. If this is not
acceptable, zinc can be reapplied by thermal spraying after the welding is done. Ther-
mal spraying the weldment will not heat it sufficiently to produce liquid metal embrit-
tlement in the stainless.
5.4 A Reader Points Out that Hot Dipped

Galvanizing is Different from Electroplated
Galvanizing. Does this Affect Need to Remove
Zinc?
A reader of the October 1999 Stainless Q&A question concerning cracking
? of austenitic stainless when joining it to galvanized steel points out that
steel with either electroplated or hot-dipped zinc coating is commonly referred to
as galvanized. The electroplated zinc coating is simply a layer of zinc attached
to the steel. But, in the case of hot-dipped zinc coating, the coating consists of an
outer, nearly pure zinc layer and an inner layer of one or more zinc-iron alloys. In
the case of the hot-dipped zinc coating, it is not sufficient to remove only the
outer, nearly pure zinc layer to avoid liquid metal cracking of the stainless steel
side of the joint during welding; one must also be sure the zinc-iron alloy layer is
also removed.
December 1999
157
The readers point is well taken. The ASM Metals Handbook, Vol. 5, discusses hot-
dipped galvanized coatings and shows the zinc-iron alloy layer. Since the zinc-iron
alloy layer is harder than nearly pure zinc, a person who grinds or sands the surface
to remove the zinc layer could mistakenly think all of the zinc is gone when only the
nearly pure zinc layer has been removed. In this case, liquid metal cracking of the
stainless side of the joint could still occur. This lends further support to the preference
for using acid pickling rather than grinding or sanding to remove the galvanized coat-
ing. Acid pickling (e.g., with 5% hydrochloric acid) will remove the zinc-iron alloy layer
as well as the nearly pure zinc outer layer on hot-dipped galvanized steel.
5.5 FN in Cladding CrMo Steel Vanishes in PWHT.

Why?
I have qualified a procedure for surfacing ASTM A516 Grade 70 steel with
? one layer of 309Cb followed by one layer of 347. The surfacing is required
to meet 5 to 15 Ferrite Number (FN) before and after postweld heat treatment
(PWHT) at 1150F (620C). Now Im attempting to qualify the same procedure
and filler metals on ASTM A387 Grade 22. The PWHT for the new steel is
1300F (704C), and Im finding ferrite below 5 FN after the PWHT. Why is that,
and what can be done about it?
December 1999
First of all, your experience is exactly what should be expected. The A516 Grade 70 is
a carbon-manganese steel, so its required PWHT temperature is not as high as that of
the A387 Grade 22, which is 2-1/4 Cr, 1-Mo steel. You should expect a 1 to 2 FN drop
in the 347 surfacing as a result of the 1150F PWHT and a drop of 5 to 10 FN as a
result of the 1300F PWHT, as compared to the as-welded condition with 347 surfac-
ing. During the PWHT, some ferrite transforms to sigma phase, an iron-chromium
intermetallic compound that is not ferro-magnetic. This occurs more rapidly and more
extensively as the temperature is raised. The formation of sigma phase is most rapid
between about 1500F (815C) and 1650F (890C). At still higher temperatures (e.g.,
1900F [1038C]), sigma phase again dissolves.
Starting with higher ferrite before PWHT is unlikely to help. Higher initial ferrite
makes the transformation to sigma phase proceed more rapidly and more extensively,
so you will likely find even less ferrite after PWHT of a weld surfacing that was ini-
tially higher in ferrite.
The fundamental question is why should you care at all about ferrite after PWHT?
The usefulness of ferrite is in preventing hot cracking during solidification. The 5 FN
minimum is a good as-welded specification for 347 (and for diluted 309Cb) for ensur-
ing freedom from solidification hot cracks. The upper limit on as-welded ferrite you
mention (15 FN maximum) is useful in limiting the amount of sigma phase that forms
during PWHT so a side bend test of the surfacing can be passed afterward. It also
limits the embrittlement of the surfacing due to sigma phase formation during high-
temperature service. But a lower limit for ferrite after PWHT serves no purpose in
assessing the quality of the 347 surfacing.
158
The lower limit for ferrite after PWHT should be deleted. Trying to achieve it wastes a
lot of time and money. If this is a specification internal to your company, I suggest you
change it. If it is imposed upon you by a customer, then you may be in for some hard
negotiations to get this changed. For ammunition in the discussion, I suggest you
obtain a copy of Guidance on Specifications of Ferrite in Stainless Steel Weld Metal by
J. Lefebvre (published in Welding in the World, 1993, Vol. 31, no. 6, pp. 390406). This
publication, although listed under a single author, is a position statement of the weld-
ing experts in Commission IX of the International Institute of Welding (IIW).
5.6 Weld Cast Iron with Austenitic Stainless?

I use 312-type stainless electrodes to repair difficult-to-weld steels, such as
? high-carbon and tool steels, without difficulty. But when I try to repair cast
iron with 312-type electrodes, the welds crack. Why is this and what can be done
about it?
January 2000
Electrodes similar in composition to 312 stainless steel have a proven track record of
successful repair in difficult-to-weld steels. There are three metallurgical keys to this
success. First, there is enough alloy in the 312 so that, even with about 30 to 35% dilu-
tion from the base metal, any austenite that forms in the weld will be stablei.e., it
will not transform to martensite and, therefore, the weld metal will have high ductil-
ity. Second, even when welding on base metal of 1% carbon content, the chromium
content in the weld metal is high enough to provide some ferrite in the weld metal.
Austenitic weld metal with a little ferrite is highly crack resistant. Third, under nor-
mal weld cooling conditions, even with carbon pickup from a 1% carbon-steel base
metal, most of the carbon will remain in solid solution, so carbides dont seriously
embrittle the weld metal.
The problem with welding on cast iron with 312-type electrodes is that cast irons are
much higher in carbon content than are difficult-to-weld steels. Cast irons typically
contain from 2.5% to 4.5% carbon. When this carbon is diluted into the 312-type weld
metal, two of the three metallurgical keys to successful welding are overcome by the
high carbon. While the austenite that forms will be stable, the extra carbon will pre-
vent any ferrite from forming, making the weld metal susceptible to hot cracking. In
addition, the weld metal will have enough carbon in it that a lot of chromium carbides,
which destroy the ductility of the weld metal, will be formed. The weld metal then has
a lot in common with the embrittled HK40 pipe described above. As a result of these
phenomena, welds on cast irons with 312-type electrodes tend to contain both hot
cracks and cold cracks. There is no practical escape with 312-type electrodes.
The solution to successful welding of cast irons is to remove the chromium from the
system entirely and add enough nickel to keep the austenite stable, even with dilution
from the cast iron. Then the weld metal is not a stainless steel at all. The normal elec-
trodes successfully used for welding cast iron are about 95% nickel (AWS A5.15 Class
ENi-CI) or 55% nickel (AWS A5.15 Class ENiFe-CI).
159
5.7 Why Not Use 308L Filler Metal to Join Carbon

Steel to 304 Base Metal?
In the August 1999 issue, you explained why mild steel is not an appropri-
? ate filler metal for joining mild steel to 304 stainless. Still thinking along
the lines of choosing a filler metal to match the weakest link, why should I
choose an overalloyed filler metal such as ER309LSi instead of just matching the
304 stainless with ER308LSi?
May 2000
Since a lower alloyed filler metal would be less expensive than ER309LSi, it is indeed
tempting to make the weld using a filler metal that nearly matches the 304 side, such
as ER308LSi for GMAW. However, this is also a risky proposition. To understand this,
it is helpful to plot the situation on the WRC-1992 Diagram, which is modified by the
recent addition of a martensite boundary.
To begin the analysis, typical compositions for a C1018 mild steel, a 304 stainless steel
and an ER308LSi welding wire for GMAW are given in Table 1. First, considering just
the two base metals, you can usually assume approximately equal contribution to
weld metal dilution from each side of the joint. So, plot the C1018 and 304 composi-
tions on the diagram and draw a tie-line between these two points. The Rule of Mix-
ing says all possible mixtures of these two base metals must lie along this tie-line.
Then, if each base metal contributes an equal amount to the dilution, you can imagine
a synthetic base metal as the midpoint of this tie-line, which is shown on the modi-
fied WRC-1992 Diagram in Figure 1.
Next, plot the ER308LSi composition on the diagram and draw a tie-line between this
point and the synthetic base metal. The Rule of Mixing says all possible mixtures of
Table 1Compositions for ER308LSi to Join C1018 to 304
%C % Cr % Ni % Mo % Cu %N Creq Nieq FN
C1018 0.18 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.07 0.01 0.03 6.59
304 0.05 18.30 8.80 0.05 0.08 0.04 18.35 11.37 4
Equal Mixture of 0.12 9.16 4.42 0.03 0.08 0.03 9.19 8.98
304 and C1018
ER308LSi 0.03 19.90 10.20 0.21 0.19 0.06 20.12 12.50 7.5
Weld,
30% Dilution 0.056 16.68 8.46 0.16 0.16 0.050 16.84 11.44 0.5
40% Dilution 0.064 15.60 7.89 0.14 0.14 0.046 15.75 11.09 0
160
Figure 1WRC-1992 Diagram Analysis of Joining 304 Stainless

to Mild Steel using ER308LSi Filler Metal
the ER308LSi filler metal with equal amounts of the two base metals will lie along
this second tie-line. In GMAW, dilution is normally between 30 and 40%, so the result-
ing weld metal will lie somewhere between 30 and 40% of the distance from the
ER308LSi filler metal to the mixture of the two base metals. In Figure 1, the expected
weld metal is shown at 30% and at 40% of the distance from the ER308LSi filler metal
to the equal mixture of the two base metals.
From this analysis, it can be seen the points corresponding to the expected weld com-
positions in Figure 1 would be just about on the extension of the zero Ferrite Number
(0 FN) line. With no ferrite, the weld would be expected to be sensitive to hot cracking.
While not all such welds will crack, some very likely will. Further, the weld at 40%
dilution is dangerously close to the martensite boundary. A little higher dilution and
the weld could contain martensite and be brittle. These are usually unacceptable
risks, so it is generally not recommended to use ER308LSi filler metal for this joint.
ER309LSi filler metal is more highly alloyed than ER308LSi and its Ferrite Number
tends to be considerably higher. Table 2 lists a typical ER309LSi composition, and,
with the same two base metals as Table 1, Table 2 also lists the calculated weld metal
at 30% dilution and at 40% dilution. This time, the weld is calculated to contain from
5 FN at 30% dilution to 2 FN at 40% dilution. Such compositions would be highly
resistant to hot cracking. A plot of the situation, developed using the analysis similar
to that of Figure 1, is given in Figure 2.
161
Table 2Compositions for ER309LSi to Join C1018 to 304
%C % Cr % Ni % Mo % Cu %N Creq Nieq FN
ER309LSi 0.02 24.10 12.70 0.13 0.16 0.05 24.24 14.44 18
Weld,
30% Dilution 0.049 19.62 10.22 0.10 0.13 0.043 19.72 12.80 5
40% Dilution 0.058 18.12 9.39 0.13 0.13 0.040 18.22 12.26 2
Figure 2WRC-1992 Diagram Analysis of Joining 304 Stainless

to Mild Steel using ER309LSi Filler Metal
It can be seen from Figure 2 that, with minor variations in the dilution obtained with
the ER309LSi filler metal, the weld will not produce compositions without ferrite.
Also, the calculated weld composition is well above and to the right of the martensite
boundary, indicating the weld will be ductile, even with small variations in dilution.
So this is a much safer choice than the ER308LSi filler metal.
The above analysis also holds true for SMAW and FCAW with slight composition mod-
ifications because the filler metal composition requirements are not quite the same.
162
This explains why 309L, in one form or another, is usually recommended for joining
mild steel to 304 stainless. However, the analysis may not hold true with SAW
because of the much higher dilutions possible with SAW. While 30 to 40% dilution is
possible at low submerged arc welding currents for a given wire size, dilution of 60%
or more is also possible using higher submerged arc current. Then, even an ER309L or
ER309LSi filler metal may not be a safe choice. A safer choice for SAW would be a
filler metal still more highly alloyed than 309, such as ER309LMo or ER312.
5.8 Can I Use 309 for Both 304 to Carbon Steel and
304 to Itself?
Im planning for a field repair that will involve both 304L-to-304L joints
? and 304L-to-structural-steel joints. To avoid mix-ups, Id like to have only
one electrode on the job site. Can 309L electrodes be used for both joints?
June 2000
The potential mix-up problem lies in using the 308L filler metal, which is normally
used for 304L-to-304L joints, on a 304L-to-structural steel joint. The 308L filler metal
is not rich enough in alloy content to compensate for normal dilution from the struc-
tural steel side. As noted in a previous column, such a weld is likely to contain no fer-
rite, with resulting hot-cracking tendencies, and/or may contain martensite, which
makes the weld metal brittle. So 308L filler metal is not recommended for joining
304L to structural steel.
Type 309L filler metal is usually chosen for joining 304L to structural steel. The real
question here is whether or not it is also suitable for the 304L-to-304L joints. The only
concern would be exposure to temperatures above 1000F (540C). A single-pass
deposit of 309L on 304L would probably be okay. But I would caution against using
the 309L filler metal for multipass welding of 304L if the weldment is to see such high
temperatures. The potential problem is that the combination of higher chromium and
ferrite content in the 309L filler metal makes the weld metal susceptible to embrittle-
ment at high temperatures, due to formation of sigma phase (an iron-chromium inter-
metallic compound) where the ferrite was.
On the other hand, if the weldments are not to experience high-temperature exposure,
then 309L filler metal should be quite acceptable for the 304L-to-304L joints. In fact,
the AWS D1.6:1999 Structural Welding CodeStainless Steel considers 309L filler
metal to be prequalified for use in 304L-to-304L joints that are to be exposed to nor-
mal atmospheric corrosion. This prequalification is based upon the filler metal at least
matching the mechanical properties of the base metal and having adequate resistance
to normal atmospheric corrosion. Furthermore, since the chromium and nickel con-
tents of the 309L are higher than those of the 304L, service of the 309L filler metal in
aqueous environments should also be more than adequate.
163
5.9 Can I Use CO2 for GMAW-S Welding of Mild

Steel to 304 with ER309LSi?
Im welding mild steel attachments to a thin 304L stainless steel shell,
? using short-circuiting transfer GMAW with ER309LSi filler metal. I have
been using a helium-based shielding gas (90% He-7.5% Ar-2.5% CO2), but it is
expensive. I experimented with 98% Ar-2% O2, but I found the welds were too
cold and ropey-looking. To reduce costs, a friend suggested I try 75% Ar-25%
CO2, or even pure CO2. I know gas high in CO2 shouldnt be used for joining
stainless to stainless because of carbon pickup and loss of corrosion resistance,
but, since I am joining mild steel to stainless, corrosion is not an issue. Is there
any harm in using CO2, or an argon-CO2 mixture, for joining mild steel to 304L
stainless?
August 2000
You are quite correct in supposing that carbon pickup cant be a corrosion issue in
your joints of mild steel to 304L. I expect you will find that somewhat less voltage is
appropriate for the argon-CO2 blends, or even for pure CO2, when setting your weld-
ing conditions. For example, I found that, while 21 V works well with the helium-
based shielding gas you mentioned, only about 15 to 17 V works well with argon-CO2
blends. In general, the voltage needs to be increased as the CO2 content of the gas is
increased. Wetting is not quite as good with argon-CO2 blends as it is with the helium-
based mixture, but it seemed adequate.
There are two drawbacks to using CO2, alone or with argon. The first is cosmetic: CO2
in the shielding gas results in oxidation of silicon, manganese and chromium. The
resulting oxides float on the weld pool surface, and, when freezing takes place, these
oxides become islands or patches of rather tightly adhering slag. Some of this slag
tends to spall off during cooling. Then the weld surface appearance consists of a gray,
oxidized surface with patches of still-adhering slag and, where slag spalling occurred,
spots of very bright shiny metal. This doesnt look very appealing. The slag is usually
too sticky to remove easily with a wire brusha needle gun or something of the sort
may be necessary to remove it. The spalling slag also has a nasty way of finding
bare skin and causing small burns, which annoy the welder, or worse. A single pass
with 75% argon-25% CO2 doesnt have much slag, but a multipass weld has quite a
lot.
The other drawback is the carbon pickup tends to suppress ferrite formation during
solidification. Ive found that, with 75% Ar-25% CO2, carbon pickup of 0.02 to 0.03%
occurs as compared to using the helium-based gas, which produced a ferrite reduction
of about 2 FN. With pure CO2, I found carbon pickup of 0.06 to 0.07% and a loss of
about 5 FN. If the ferrite gets near zero, you may encounter centerline cracking. Of
course, this will depend also upon how much dilution from the mild steel occurs in the
weld metal. If the supplier of your ER309LSi wire controls ferrite to a sufficiently high
level, a small ferrite loss due to carbon pickup wont cause a problem. But with a lower
ferrite wire, you could encounter centerline cracking.
164
5.10 410 to 304L?

Im welding 410 stainless steel fins to a 304L stainless box. The joints are
? fillet welds, and I am using GTAW with ER312 filler metal. ER312 filler
metal is difficult to find and it is expensive. Is there a low-cost alternative to
ER312?
September 2000
ER312 is usually considered to be the cure-all for welding difficult materials and dis-
similar-metal joints. The utility of ER312 is it will tolerate quite a bit of dilution (up to
more than 40%) from high-carbon steels. Even with such high dilution, it will produce
weld metal that solidifies as primary ferrite (which makes it resistant to hot cracking
in such joints). The weld metal will contain enough alloy so whatever austenite forms
in the weld metal will remain stable (not transform to martensite), which makes it
resistant to cold cracking. All of this makes ER312 a very safe alloy for 410 to 304L
joints.
But it is not the only very safe alloy, and it is definitely overkill for 410 to 304L join-
ing. ER309L is equally safe, readily available from numerous suppliers and signifi-
cantly less costly than ER312. Furthermore, ER308L is quite safe, even more readily
available and even less costly.
To understand why ER309L and ER308L are safe, it is useful to examine typical com-
positions on the WRC-1992 Diagram (modified by adding the martensite boundary
published in the Welding Journal, May 1999, pages 180-s to 192-s). To begin, we need
typical compositions for 410, 304L, ER312, ER309L and ER308L. These are given in
Table 1, along with calculated Chromium Equivalent (Creq), Nickel Equivalent (Nieq)
and Ferrite Number (FN) for each composition. Variation from these typical values
will not appreciably affect the analysis.
The analysis procedure is the same for all three potential filler metals. First, the 410
and 304L base metal compositions are plotted on the WRC-1992 Diagram and a tie-
line is drawn between these two points. By the Rule of Mixing, all possible mixtures of
the two base metals must lie along this tie-line. Assuming each base metal contributes
equally to the dilution in the weld metal, Point B (corresponding to a synthetic base
metal made up of equal parts 410 and 304L) is drawn as the midpoint of the tie-line
between the two base metals. Then the proposed filler metal composition (312, 309L
or 308L) is plotted on the diagram and a second tie-line is drawn from the proposed
filler metal to Point B. Finally, assuming the normal 30% dilution (i.e., the weld metal
consists of 70% filler metal and 30% of the synthetic base metal), Point W, correspond-
ing to the anticipated weld metal composition, is placed on this second tie-line, 30% of
the distance from the proposed filler metal position toward the synthetic base metal
composition.
Figure 1 plots the analysis for ER312 filler metal on the WRC-1992 Diagram with
martensite boundary. In Figure 1, the tie-line from the filler metal to the synthetic
base metal is easy to distinguish because it is not parallel to the iso-ferrite lines. Point
W, corresponding to the anticipated weld metal composition, lies within the high ferrite
portion of the Diagram, comfortably above the martensite boundary. For compositions
165
Table 1Typical Compositions for 410, 304L, ER312, ER309L and ER308L
410 304L ER312 ER309L ER308L
C,% 0.10 0.02 0.08 0.02 0.02
Mn,% 0.4 1.6 1.0 1.5 1.5
Si,% 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4
Cr,% 12.0 18.5 29.0 23.8 20.5
Ni,% 0.1 8.2 8.8 13.5 10.5
Mo,% 0.02 0.3 0.2 0.05 0.1
Cu,% 0.05 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
Nb,% 0.0 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
N,% 0.01 0.06 0.04 0.04 0.04
WRC-1992 Creq 12.0 18.8 29.2 23.9 20.6
WRC-1992 Nieq 3.8 11.0 12.4 15.0 12.0
WRC-1992 FN Martensite 7.5 82.7 13.4 11.3
Figure 1Analysis for ER312 Filler Metal on the

WRC-1992 Diagram with Martensite Boundary
166
above and to the right of this boundary, no martensite is anticipated in the weld
metal. A large variation in the assumed dilution cannot cause the weld to be ferrite-
free, nor can it cause martensite to form in the weld. So ER312 is a very safe filler
metal for this joint.
Figure 2 plots the analysis for ER309L filler metal. Now the tie-line from the ER309L
composition to the synthetic base metal composition is difficult to distinguish because
it is nearly parallel to the 12-FN iso-ferrite line. From a metallurgical point of view,
this is very desirable, because this means large departures from the assumed 30%
dilution will produce virtually no change in the weld metal ferrite content. Again, a
large departure from the assumed dilution cannot cause the weld to be ferrite-free.
More than 70% dilution (highly unlikely) would be required to cause martensite to
form in the weld. So ER309L is also a very safe filler metal for this joint.
Figure 3 plots the analysis for ER308L filler metal. As with the ER309L, it is difficult
to distinguish the tie-line from the ER308L composition to the synthetic base metal
composition because it is nearly parallel to the 12-FN iso-ferrite line, and the antici-
pated weld composition, Point W, lies almost on top of the 304L base metal composi-
tion. Because the tie-line from the ER308L to the synthetic base metal lies nearly
parallel to the 12-FN-iso-ferrite line, a ferrite-free weld cannot be produced; therefore,
there is no fear of hot cracking. Further, the martensite boundary intersects the tie-
line from the filler metal to the synthetic base metal at a point that is 60% of the dis-
tance from the ER308L to the synthetic base metal, Point B. This means at least 60%
dilution would be required for martensite to appear in this weld, which is quite
unlikely. So it can be concluded that ER308L filler metal is nearly as safe as ER309L
filler metal for this joint.
Figure 2Analysis for ER309L Filler Metal on the

167
Figure 3Analysis for ER308L Filler Metal on the

5.11 Filler Metal and PWHT for Joining 2205 to

Carbon Steel?
It has been proposed part of an ASTM A106 Grade B piping system for
? elevated-temperature service with duplex stainless steel pipe (UNS
S31803) be replaced. This will require some joints of the duplex stainless pipe to
be welded to the A106 B, as well as joints between duplex stainless pipes. Is it
possible to use the same filler metal for both types of joints? What shall I do
about postweld heat treatment (PWHT)?
October 2000
Be careful. I dont know to what code you are making the replacement piping, but
there are some very real concerns here. To begin, ASTM A106 B is rather ordinary
carbon steel. The composition limits for this, and for UNS S31803 pipe according to
ASTM A928, which refers to ASTM A240 for composition limits, are given in Table 1.
The matching filler metal for duplex stainless S31803 is designated 2209 by the AWS
filler metal specifications. For reference, the covered electrode composition limits,
168
Table 1Composition Limits for

ASTM 106B and UNS S31803 Pipe According to ASTM A928
%C % Mn %P %S % Si % Cr % Ni % Mo %N
A106 B(a) 0.30 0.29 to 0.035 0.035 0.10 0.40 0.40 0.15
max. 1.06 max. max. max. max. max. max.
S31803 0.03 2.00 0.030 0.020 1.00 21.0 to 4.5 to 2.5 to 0.08 to
max. max. max. max. max. 23.0 6.5 3.5 0.20
E2209-XX 0.04 0.5 to 0.04 0.03 1.0 21.5 to 8.5 to 2.9 to 0.08 to
max. 1.5 max. max. max. 23.5 10.5 3.9 0.20
(a) There are also tramp limits for Cu (0.40% max.) and V (0.08% max.).
from AWS A5.4, are added to the table. This would normally be the filler metal chosen
for joining S31803 to itself. It is also suitable for joining S31803 to carbon steels such
as the A106 B.
The major concern here is temperature. Both S31803 and the matching filler metal
are susceptible to various precipitations at elevated temperatures that seriously
embrittle them. At higher temperatures, sigma phase forms (see the February 2000
Stainless Q&A column). But at lower temperatures (requiring longer times), a chro-
mium-rich ferrite phase (commonly known as alpha-prime) precipitates by separating
from the iron-rich ferrite. This precipitation occurs most rapidly at about 885F
(475C). In the United States, the result is often called 885F embrittlement, or 475C
embrittlement elsewhere. The range of temperatures for alpha-prime precipitation
begin at well below the temperature of most rapid formation and extend upward to
the beginning of the sigma phase precipitation temperature range.
Because of concerns about the precipitations that affect duplex stainlesses in general,
they are almost never given a PWHT unless a full anneal is necessary. In particular, a
normal PWHT at 1150F (620C) for A106B would be severely damaging to UNS
S31803 and its matching filler metal. I would recommend strongly against that.
I am also concerned about what you mean by elevated-temperature service. The

ASME Code, Section II Part D, permits use of A106 B piping at temperatures up to
1000F (535C). But it sets a maximum temperature limit on UNS S31803 of 600F
(315C). This limit is clearly out of concern about alpha-prime embrittlement. But
even this temperature limit may not be conservative enough. Commission IX of the
International Institute of Welding recommends service temperatures no higher than
480F (250C) for duplex stainless steels, and it notes alpha-prime embrittlement has
been found after exposures of greater than 10,000 hours (about 14 months) at 535F
(280C) (see van Nassau, Hilkes and Meelker. 1993. Welding duplex and super duplex
stainless steels, a guide for industry. Welding in the World, Vol. 31, N5, pp. 323343).
169
If your service temperature is going to reach 500F or higher, I would suggest you not
replace A106 B with UNS S31803. On the other hand, if elevated-temperature ser-
vice means 480F or lower, then you can use 2209 filler metal for both the A106 B to
S31803 joints and for the S31803 to S31803 joints, but do not use a PWHT.
5.12 Welding Over Nickel Alloy Cladding (e.g., 625

Over 2-1/4 Cr-1 Mo to 304H)?
I am attempting to qualify a welding procedure for joining 2-1/4 Cr-1 Mo
? steel plate clad with nickel Alloy 625 to 304H stainless. I am using 309 cov-
ered electrodes. The welding is fine while joining the CrMo steel to the 304H, but
when I tie in to the 625 cladding, there is a lot of centerline cracking. What is the
problem, and what can be done about it?
November 2000
Your problem stems from dilution from the Alloy 625 cladding into the stainless steel
weld metal. There are two contributing factorsthe nickel and the niobium (a.k.a.
columbium) in the Alloy 625. The high nickel of the Alloy 625 (more than 60%) tends
to make the diluted weld metal fully austenitic. Even as little as 15% dilution from
the Alloy 625 will mean the weld metal will contain about 20% nickel, so that it is vir-
tually impossible to use a stainless steel filler metal and still get ferrite in the weld
metal (Table 1). The niobium (more than 3%) in the Alloy 625 makes the diluted weld
metal contain on the order of 0.5% Nb. That niobium level, coupled with a virtually
ferrite-free deposit due to the nickel pickup, makes the weld metal extremely sensitive
Table 1Typical Compositions of Alloy 625,

309 Filler Metal, and Diluted Weld Metal
Typical
Composition Cr, % Ni, % Mo, % Nb, % FN(a)
Alloy 625 21.0 60 9 3.5 0
309 Filler Metal 23.5 13 11
309 Filler with 15% 23.1 20 1.35 0.53 0

Dilution from 625
(a) FN = Ferrite Number, calculated from the WRC-1992 Diagram.
170
to hot cracking. A pretty good rule of thumb in ferrite-free compositions is that no nio-
bium is good, and a lot of niobium (on the order of 3%) is good, but low niobium (on the
order of 0.5%) is very bad as regards sensitivity to hot cracking. Your centerline cracks
are undoubtedly hot cracks.
Type 312 filler might be tempting since it can produce some ferrite when diluted with
Alloy 625. But 312 is very dangerous in a joint to be given a postweld heat treatment
(PWHT), as yours undoubtedly is, given you are welding in part on 2-1/4 Cr-1 Mo
steel. The high ferrite in 312 weld metal transforms very rapidly to sigma phase dur-
ing PWHT, which severely embrittles the weld.
There are a couple of ways to fix the problem. Assuming the properties of the 309 weld
metal in the CrMo steel to 304H stainless part of the joint are acceptable (more about
that later), you can choose a nickel-based alloy filler metal just for the weld passes
that tie in to the Alloy 625 and all subsequent passes. Another good rule here is that
once you have a nickel-based alloy upon which to weld, you can never back up to stain-
less steel filler metal. The nickel pickup from the substrate will always push the stain-
less weld metal into ferrite-free compositions that tend to hot crack. So you could fill
the joint with 309 filler metal until you get close to the Alloy 625, then finish the joint
with AWS A5.11 covered electrodes of the class ENiCrFe-3 (nominally 70% Ni, 15%
Cr, 7% Mn, 5% Fe and 2% Nb), or with GMA wire of the AWS A5.14 class ERNiCr-3
(nominally 20% Cr, 70% Ni, 7% Mn and 2.5% Nb). Both of these nickel-based-alloy
filler metals have high resistance to hot cracking.
There is a danger in using 309 filler metal for most of the joint and then finishing with
nickel-based-alloy filler metal for the weld passes once weld metal contact with the
625 cladding begins. The danger is that, during PWHT and service at high tempera-
tures, carbon from the 2-1/4 Cr-1 Mo steel migrates into the 309 stainless deposit,
causing carbide precipitation in the filler metal along the weld interface, and causing
carbon depletion in the CrMo steel heat-affected zone (HAZ). This carbon depletion in
the HAZ, along with the rather large mismatch in thermal expansion between the 309
filler metal and the CrMo steel base metal, has been known to cause premature fail-
ure in high-temperature service, especially when thermal cycling is frequent. Nor-
mally, both CrMo steel and 304H stainless steel are chosen for high-temperature
service, so I suspect this to be the case in your situation. If so, you should consider a
second way of making the joint.
Instead of filling most of the joint with 309 filler metal, and only using nickel-based-
alloy filler metal for the passes once the Alloy 625 cladding is reached, you might want
to consider making the entire joint with the nickel alloy filler metals ENiCrFe-3 or
ERNiCr-3. Their hot cracking resistance in joining CrMo steel to 304H stainless steel
is very good, carbon migration during PWHT and high-temperature service is reduced
with nickel-based alloy filler metals in place of 309 stainless filler and the thermal
expansion of the nickel-based alloys is closer to matching that of the CrMo steel, so
thermal stresses are lessened compared to using 309 filler metal. It is rather common,
today, to use these nickel-based-alloy filler metals for an entire joint such as yours for
these reasons. However, it should be noted the nickel-based-alloy filler metals are
more costly than 309 stainless electrodes.
171
5.13 Commercial 309L Electrodes vs. MIL 309L

ElectrodesCracking in Stainless to Mild
Steel Joints?
I have always understood 309L is the best filler metal for crack-free joining
? of 304 stainless to mild steel, and I have used it successfully many times
for this application. Recently, I changed jobs from a commercial fabricator to a
shipyard. To my surprise, my very first joint of 304L stainless to mild steel, with
309L-covered electrodes, cracked along the centerline. I ground out the cracked
weld and repeated the joint with the same results. Another welder, with long
experience in the yard, suggested I turn back the heat on my machine and try
again. I did, and this time the weld didnt crack but welding was much slower
and the weld looked cold. I never had to change to this cold procedure before with
309L electrodes. What is different now?
March 2001
I expect the shipyards 309L electrodes are produced to the MIL-E-22200/2 specifica-
tion. These electrodes are not the same as commercial 309L electrodes. While both
commercial and MIL 309L electrodes are designed to meet AWS A5.4 composition lim-
its, the design aims within these composition limits are different. The AWS A5.4 spec-
ification limits for the 309L weld metal are given in Table 1.
In producing heats of steel to be used as core wires for covered 309L stainless steel
electrodes, the steel mill rod supplier is driven by considerations affecting the ease of
reducing the as-cast steel to rod diameter. In particular, the steel mill is well aware
zero-ferrite and high-ferrite compositions are more difficult to convert to rod than low-
ferrite compositions. This consideration generally drives the steel mill rod supplier to
melt to an aim composition that is in the upper half of the 309L nickel range (13 to
14%), and in the lower half of the 309L chromium range (22 to 23.5%).
Nickel, the principal element working to reduce ferrite, is not a readily oxidized ele-
ment, so nickel of the core wire is transferred almost 100% to the weld metal. On the
other hand, some chromium, the principal element working to increase ferrite in the
weld deposit, tends to be oxidized and transferred to the slag covering, depending, to a
certain extent, upon the silica content of the coating design. So the electrode manufac-
turers latitude to design ferrite content of the weld deposit is mainly limited to
adjustment of metallic chromium content of the electrode coating. By only putting in
enough metallic chromium to make up for oxidation losses, the electrode manufac-
Table 1AWS A5.4 E309L-XX Composition Limits
%C % Mn %P %S % Si %Cr % Ni % Mo % Cu
0.04 0.5 to 0.04 0.03 0.90 22.0 to 12.0 to 0.75 0.75

max. 2.5 max. max. max. 25.0 14.0 max. max.
172
turer can make the weld metal reproduce the low ferrite of the rod as it came from the
steel mill. Or, by putting extra chromium in the electrode coating, the electrode manu-
facturer can raise the chromium content into the upper half of the 309L range (23.5 to
25.0%). In this latter situation, the weld deposit will have appreciably more ferrite
than was designed into the core wire by the steel mill.
In general, the root pass of a joint between mild steel and 304L stainless steel, made
with a 309L electrode will have a lower ferrite content than the undiluted 309L com-
position due to pickup of carbon from the mild steel side of the joint. Carbon is very
powerful in promoting austenite or in reducing ferrite. So, if the ferrite content of the
undiluted 309L filler metal is higher, the electrode can tolerate more dilution from the
mild steel side while still producing a root-pass weld deposit with enough ferrite to
prevent hot cracking (typically 3 FN is sufficient). Since most joints of 304L to mild
steel are used in the as-welded condition, commercial design of 309L electrodes is
aimed toward the upper half of the chromium range so the undiluted weld metal will
have something more than 10 FN to maximize tolerance for dilution without hot
cracking in such joints.
However, avoidance of root-pass hot cracking in dissimilar metal joints, along with
meeting AWS A5.4 309L composition limits, are not the only concerns in designing
309L-covered electrodes. 309L electrodes are not only used for joining mild steel to
stainless steel but can also be used for joining low-alloy steels to stainless steels.
Many low-alloy steels require postweld heat treatment (PWHT) to temper martensite
in their weld heat-affected zones. When the 309L electrodes are used to make a multi-
pass, dissimilar metal joint, there will generally be a gradient in ferrite content of the
weld metal, from the lowest level in the diluted root pass to nearly that of the undi-
luted 309L filler metal in upper weld passes away from the mild steel or low-alloy
steel side of the joint. Then, when PWHT is performed on such a joint, typically at
temperatures from 1150 to 1300F (620 to 705C), the ferrite initially present tends to
transform to sigma phase, a brittle iron-chromium intermetallic compound. If there is
a lot of ferrite in the upper weld passes initially, there is likely to be a lot of sigma
phase after PWHT. If a side bend test is made of an initially high-ferrite joint after
PWHT, it is likely to fail in a brittle manner.
Enter MIL-E-22200/2. The U.S. Navy wants 309L electrodes to be suitable for use, in
both the as-welded and PWHT conditions, for joining either mild steel or low-alloy
steel to austenitic stainless steels such as 304L. So MIL-E-22200/2 imposes limits for
ferrite in undiluted weld metal of 4 to 10 FN, which is in addition to the requirements
of the AWS A5.4 specification. Then, the resulting weldment will pass a side bend test
in either the as-welded condition or after PWHT, provided the root pass does not
develop hot cracks. But tolerance for dilution in the root pass of dissimilar metal
joints is reduced with such electrodes. Your experience with root pass hot cracking,
and the fix given by your coworker are consistent with my experiences with such
electrodes.
Of course, from a purely technical viewpoint you could use a high-ferrite commercial
309L electrode for the root pass, then switch to the lower ferrite military electrode for
the remainder of the joint. But the Navy, and the shipyards, generally wont allow the
high-ferrite commercial 309L electrodes on the job site. They are rightly concerned
173
with the possibility of a mix-up resulting in the higher ferrite commercial electrodes
being used for multiple passes in a joint to be given PWHT. So, it seems you are likely
to be stuck learning and using the lower current, lower dilution technique for the root
pass with 309L electrodes for dissimilar metal joints in the shipyard.
5.14 Welding Annealed 410 to Itself and to Mild

Steel?
I have to fabricate some large gates and supports of ASTM A276 Type 410
? stainless steel (Condition A) and ASTM A36 structural steel. Can I use
309L filler metal for both the 410-to-410 joints and for the 410-to-A36 joints? I
plan to mainly use submerged arc and flux cored arc welding. Also, if it is possi-
ble to use 309L filler metal, can I avoid postweld heat treatment?
April 2001
Type 410 stainless steel is a 12% chromium martensitic stainless steel. It can be pur-
chased in a variety of tempers, from annealed to full hard. Since 309L filler metal can-
not be hardened by heat treatment, a first consideration is whether there will be a
strength undermatch. The minimum strength requirement for 410 Condition A stain-
less steel is 70,000 lb/in.2 (480 MPa), and the minimum strength requirement for the
A36 steel is 58,000 lb/in.2 (400 MPa). The flux cored 309L in AWS A5.22 is required to
provide at least 75,000 lb/in.2 (520 MPa) tensile strength. There is no strength
requirement for the ER390L filler metal that would be used for submerged arc weld-
ing, but the AWS A5.9 specification indicates the weld strength can be expected to
mirror that of the matching 309L covered electrode in AWS A5.4, 75,000 lb/in.2. So
there will be no weld metal strength undermatch.
The next consideration is what the microstructure of the first weld pass will be in each
case. With 309L filler metal, the most desirable first pass results when solidification
occurs with ferrite as the first phase to freeze (primary ferrite solidification) so that
the room-temperature microstructure is austenite with a small amount of ferrite.
Then, subsequent fill passes will have only a little more ferrite than the root pass. It is
undesirable to have solidification with austenite as the first phase to freeze (primary
austenite solidification) because of tendencies toward hot cracking with that mode of
solidification. And, it is undesirable for the weld metal to form a significant amount of
martensite.
The WRC-1992 Diagram, with the martensite boundary at 1% Mn, is appropriate for
predicting the root-pass, weld-metal microstructure for both 410- to-410 joints and for
410-to-A36 joints. To begin, Table 1 lists typical compositions, calculated chromium
equivalent (CrEQ) and nickel equivalent (NiEQ), and calculated Ferrite Number (FN)
for the two base metals and 309L filler metal, obtained using the WRC-1992 Diagram.
Note the WRC-1992 Diagram cannot make a complete prediction of the microstruc-
ture of the A36 or 410 base metals because their compositions are outside the range of
the isoferrite lines in the diagram. However, 410 in the as-welded condition is known
to be virtually 100% martensite.
174
Table 1Typical A36 Steel, 410 Stainless Steel and 309L Filler Metal
%C % Cr % Ni % Mo %N % CrEQ % NiEQ FN
A36 0.150 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.003 0.00 5.31
410 0.100 12.00 0.10 0.00 0.020 12.00 4.00
309L 0.030 24.00 13.00 0.10 0.060 24.10 15.28 13
Figure 1 plots the two base metals and 309L filler metal on the WRC-1992 Diagram
with the martensite boundary at 1% Mn. Consider first the case of joining 410 to 410
with 309L filler metal. All possible mixtures of 410 and 309L must, by the Rule of
Mixing, lie along the dotted tie line connecting the 309L composition and the 410 com-
position. The actual root-pass weld composition is found by proceeding along this tie
line from the 309L composition toward the 410 composition a distance equal to the
percent dilution. So, if 30% dilution were the case, the weld-metal composition would
lie along this tie line, at a point 30% of the distance from the 309L toward the 410
composition. In flux cored arc welding (FCAW), shielded metal arc welding (SMAW) or
gas metal arc welding (GMAW), 30 to 35% dilution would normally be expected. Fig-
ure 1 shows that, even at 50% dilution, the root pass will contain nearly 10 FN and
will be safely above the martensite boundary. Since the dotted tie line from the 309L
to the 410 composition is nearly parallel to the isoferrite lines of the diagram, there
will be virtually no effect of dilution on weld metal ferrite content. So the only root-
pass concern with the 410-to-410 joint would be in submerged arc welding (SAW),
where dilution of more than 60% is possible. Then some martensite would be expected
and the weld would likely be brittle. Therefore, it is necessary to choose welding condi-
tions that will not produce such high dilution. In particular, high current, high wire
feed speed conditions should be avoided because these produce high dilution. A square
butt joint with little or no root opening should be avoided since this joint configuration
encourages high wire feed speed and high current to obtain full penetration.
The analysis for the 410-to-A36 joint is a little more complicated. To begin with, a
solid tie line is drawn between the two base metal compositions in Figure 1. All possi-
ble mixtures of the two base metals must lie along this tie line. If each contributes
equally to the dilution, which is likely, then the synthetic base metal that provides
the actual dilution for the root pass would be the mid point of this tie line. A second
solid tie line is then drawn from the 309L composition to this synthetic base metal.
Again, the diluted root-pass composition is found by proceeding along this second tie
line from the 309L composition toward the synthetic base metal composition a dis-
tance equal to the expected percent dilution. It can be seen in Figure 1 that at 30%
dilution, or at 40% dilution, the root-pass weld deposit will contain a small amount of
ferrite and will be safely above the martensite boundary. Note that, at 40% dilution,
the expected ferrite will be less than 2 FN. This is still on the primary ferrite solidifi-
cation mode side of the dashed line that divides the diagram into primary austenite
solidification (the region marked AF) and primary ferrite solidification (the region
175
Note: Analysis for the 410-to-410 joint using 309L filler metal is along the dotted line connecting the
point labeled from 309L to the point labeled 410. Analysis for the 410-to-A36 joint using 309L filler
metal is along the two solid lines, one joining the point labeled A36 to the point labeled 410 and
the other joining the point labeled 309L to the point labeled Mix of A36 and 410.
Figure 1WRC-1992 Diagram with Martensite Boundary at 1% Mn
marked FA). However, at dilution levels appreciably above 40%, the martensite
boundary will be crossed and a brittle weld can be expected. Excessive dilution should
be avoided with SAW even more for the 410-to-A36 joint than the 410-to-410 joint. But
FCAW, SMAW and GMAW should be safe for this joint.
One final consideration is the heat-affected zone (HAZ) of the 410 stainless. In the as-
welded condition, the HAZ of the 410 will be about 100% martensite, with hardness
of around 35 Rockwell C. This is sensitive to cold cracking due to diffusible hydrogen,
but austenitic weld metal largely prevents hydrogen from diffusing into the HAZ, so
cold cracking is not very likely, especially if preheat of 300F (150C) is maintained.
But the high hardness will mean the ductility of the HAZ will be limited. If it is
necessary to pass a bend test to qualify the welding procedure, you may encounter
difficulty. Use of small weld beads to limit the width of the HAZ can maximize the
likelihood of passing bend tests. If you find you still cannot pass the bend test, you
may have no alternative to localized postweld heat treatment. A temperature of
1050 to 1100F (565 to 595C) should temper (soften) the HAZ enough to pass a bend
test.
176
5.15 Stud Welding Mild Steel Studs (ASTM A29) to

304?
Are there situations in which I can weld 304L stainless to mild steel with-
? out filler metal?
May 2001
Whether you can or not depends upon what the restraint is and what the require-
ments are for joint ductility and toughness. There are two main situations in which
welding without filler metal might be considered. One is gas tungsten arc welding
(GTAW) of relatively thin materials, such as sheet or tubing. The other is attachment
of mild steel studs to stainless steel sheet or plate. Both situations present some real
concerns.
In either situation, the fusion zone will have a microstructure that is rather undesir-
able. In both situations, it is reasonable the fusion zone will consist of an approxi-
mately 50:50 mixture of the two base metals. A quick calculation shows a 50:50
mixture of 304L stainless (nominally 18% Cr and 9% Ni) with mild steel (for example,
A36 steel with, typically, 0.15% C) will have a composition of about 9% Cr, 4.5% Ni
and 0.08% C. First, such a composition will solidify as primary austenite, which
means it will be sensitive to hot cracking. If there is very low restraint, it may be pos-
sible to obtain a weld without hot cracks, but it is not a very safe situation. Thin gauge
material, as is likely to be welded by GTAW without filler metal, helps to minimize
restraint. Second, that composition, which is austenitic at high temperatures, will
transform to martensite during cooling to room temperature. It is an air-hardening
composition, so that preheat will not prevent martensite formation. Martensite con-
taining about 0.08% carbon will have an as-welded hardness of about 35 Rockwell C,
so its ductility and toughness can be expected to be quite low.
In either situation, the lower the carbon in the mild steel, the better the chance for
some usable properties. For example, threaded steel studs are likely to contain about
0.15% C, which leads again to the 35 Rockwell C hardness mentioned above. But a
cold-headed stud is likely to be lower in carbon than a threaded steel stud. C1008 steel
is common for cold-headed studs. The 50:50 mixture with 304L stainless results in a
fusion zone carbon content of 0.05%. This lower carbon fusion zone will generally pro-
duce fusion zone hardness in martensite of 28 Rockwell C, so that ductility and tough-
ness can be expected to be better than in the case of the higher carbon threaded stud.
Stud welds, as used, for example, for anchoring concrete to steel, normally have to
pass a rather severe test consisting of bending the stud by hammering it or using a
length of pipe for leverage. The martensitic fusion zone may fracture in such a test. It
can be helpful, as regards passing this bend test, to adjust the arc time and plunge of
the stud welding machine to force the stud deep into the fusion zone, causing most of
the fused metal to be expelled, so that the remaining fusion zone is very thin and
below the surface of the stainless steel.
Before making welds between 304L stainless and mild steel without filler metal, fully
consider the consequences of weld cracking and weld brittleness. If a weld fracture
177
would be merely a nuisance, you might want to try it. But if it could lead to serious
property damage or risk of injury or worse, Id suggest you avoid making joints with-
out filler metal. The most common filler metal for such joints would be 309L or 309LSi
for a GTAW joint. For a stud weld to 304L stainless steel, if the risk of weld cracking
or brittleness is considered to be too great, use a 304 stainless steel stud, not a mild
steel stud.
5.16 Why is Stainless Steel Weld Metal so

Successful in Eliminating Cold Cracks from
the HAZ of Carbon Steel?
What makes austenitic stainless steel filler metal so successful for elimi-
? nating heat-affected zone cracks in dissimilar joints involving high carbon
steel?
June 2001
There are two parts to eliminating cracking by using stainless steel filler metal. One
part is usually designing the filler metal so the root pass weld deposit will contain
some ferrite. The ferrite found at room temperature is usually evidence the weld
metal solidified with ferrite as the first phase to freeze (primary ferrite solidification).
To obtain primary ferrite solidification in a dissimilar joint, such as 304 stainless to
mild steel, a filler metal such as 309L, which has typically on the order of 15 FN in the
all-weld metal, is usually sufficient. However, a high-carbon steel base metal on one or
both sides of the joint often results in 309L being insufficient in ferrite potential to
obtain primary ferrite solidification in the root pass. This is because carbon pickup by
dilution from the base metal is very powerful in suppressing ferrite. Then the use of a
very high-ferrite filler metal such as 312 (typically 70 to 90 FN in the all-weld metal)
may become necessary to avoid hot cracking in the root pass.
There are some stainless steel filler metals capable of producing crack-resistant root
pass weld deposits in dissimilar metal joints involving high-carbon steel without pri-
mary ferrite solidification. For example, successful welds in armor have been made
with 310 filler metal, 308Mo, 307 and the European 18 8 Mn. Nickel-based alloys such
as AWS A5.11 class ENiCrFe-2 electrodes have also been used successfully for such
joints, and primary ferrite solidification is impossible with such filler metal.
The second part of the cracking problem involves the heat-affected zone (HAZ) of the
high-carbon steel. Welds in armor, for example, are not dissimilar metal joints, so
there is nothing about the combination of materials that requires austenitic filler
metal. However, high-carbon steels such as armor are very susceptible to HAZ crack-
ing due to the action of diffusible hydrogen. For hydrogen-assisted cracking to occur,
three things are needed: high hardness, high stress and a source of diffusible hydro-
gen. In high-carbon steel, it is almost impossible to avoid high hardness in the HAZ
178
unless extremely high preheat and interpass temperatures are used, which are usu-
ally unsuitable for the properties of the weldment. In a weld of any significant size,
yield-point residual stresses can be anticipated due to the shrinkage associated with
weld metal contraction during cooling. These considerations often leave attack on dif-
fusible hydrogen in the hard material as the only satisfactory approach to preventing
cracking.
If the weld metal in a high-carbon steel is a low-alloy steel such as E11018M, carbon
pickup from the high-carbon steel makes the weld metal hard and prone to transverse
cracking. By substituting an austenitic stainless steel or nickel-based alloy filler
metal, transverse weld cracking due to diffusible hydrogen is eliminated. Then there
remains the HAZ cracking concern. The source of hydrogen that diffuses into the HAZ
is normally the weld deposit. However, the rate of diffusion of hydrogen through aus-
tenite (which includes nickel-based alloys as well as austenitic stainless steels) is on
the order of 100 times slower than the rate of diffusion of hydrogen through a ferritic
microstructure. So, although the weld metal may contain hydrogen, the hydrogen is
effectively trapped in the austenitic weld metal and is unable to reach the HAZ to
cause cracking. Therefore, a hard HAZ is far less likely to crack when austenitic filler
metal is used than when ferritic filler metal is used. It is this low diffusion rate that is
responsible for protecting the HAZ from hydrogen damage.
Nevertheless, it should be recognized that reducing the diffusion rate of hydrogen by a

factor of about 100 does not mean the diffusion is zero. There is still, with austenitic
filler metals, some sensitivity to the starting hydrogen level in the filler metal. Hydro-
gen cracking in a high-carbon steel HAZ is not unknown when an austenitic filler
metal is used. Filler metals to be used for high-carbon steels should be treated as if
they were high-strength steel filler metalsi.e., every effort should be made to keep
these electrodes dry and free of moisture contamination. They are best kept in sealed
containers or stored in holding ovens after the sealed container is opened, just as low-
hydrogen electrodes are handled. If exposed, they may need to be rebaked at tempera-
tures of 600 to 800F (315 to 425C) to dry them out.
5.17 312 Filler Metal for a Transition Joint

Between Carbon Steel and 304H for 700F
Service?
We need to make transition joints between carbon steel pipe (ASTM A106)
? and 304H stainless. The carbon steel pipe and transition joints will serve
at 700F (370C) design temperature. The 304H design temperature, away from
the transition joints, will be 1100F (595C). The joints will not be postweld heat
treated. Type 312 filler metal has been suggested for the transition joints. Is this
a good choice?
September 2001
179
Type 312 filler metal (nominally 29% Cr and 9% Ni) has excellent resistance to hot
cracking in such a dissimilar joint because of its high ferrite and tolerance for dilu-
tion. From that point of view, it is a good choice, but not from the point of view of
design service temperature. Many people think of 312 as an austenitic stainless steel
filler metal, but it is not. It is, in fact, a duplex ferritic-austenitic stainless steel filler
metal. It is so high in ferrite content (typically 60 to 90 FN) it behaves, from a metal-
lurgical viewpoint, very similarly to a duplex stainless steel filler metal such as 2209.
These high-chromium, high-ferrite stainless steel filler metals are sensitive to forma-
tion of the alpha prime phase during exposure to temperatures of about 550F (285C)
to 980F (525C), which includes the 700F design temperature.
The alpha prime phase is not an intermetallic compound like sigma phase, which
forms at higher temperatures than alpha prime. Alpha prime is a chromium- rich,
body-centered cubic (BCC) phase that separates from the iron-rich BCC ferrite phase
by diffusion of iron and chromium atoms. On a chromium-iron phase diagram, iron-
rich BCC ferrite is symbolized by the Greek letter alpha, and the chromium-rich BCC
ferrite is symbolized by the Greek letter alpha followed by a prime symbol. The chem-
ical composition of the alpha prime phase is on the order of 80 to 95% chromium, 20 to
5% iron. The alpha prime phase precipitates within the iron-rich ferrite phase on a
very fine scalean electron microscope is usually necessary to see it clearly. The for-
mation of alpha prime phase severely embrittles both duplex and ferritic stainless
steels and their weld metals.
Alpha prime phase forms most rapidly at 885F (475C), so the resulting embrittle-
ment is often referred to as 885F embrittlement in the United States or 475C
embrittlement elsewhere in the world. The embrittlement may be severe after expo-
sure of less than an hour at 885F, for a high-chromium, high-ferrite stainless steel
filler metal such as 312. At a temperature of 700F, perhaps 100 hours, or more, may
be necessary to produce severe embrittlement in 312 filler metal. But embrittlement
is inevitable at your design service temperature.
There are several ways embrittlement due to alpha prime phase shows up. The hard-
ness of the ferrite typically increases from less than 200 Vickers without alpha prime
to more than 300 Vickers with extensive alpha prime. Tensile elongation of the weld
metal typically falls from well above 20% without alpha prime to less than 5% with
extensive alpha prime. And the Charpy V-notch impact energy at room temperature
falls from more than 20 ft-lb (27 J) without alpha prime to less than 10 ft-lb (14 J)
with extensive alpha prime. Corrosion resistance of the weld metal is also damaged by
extensive alpha prime precipitation, but this would not be an issue for your dissimilar
metal joint since the carbon steel side has little corrosion resistance.
You can find a good review of alpha prime phase and resulting embrittlement in
Welding Metallurgy of Stainless Steels by Erich Folkhard (New York, N.Y.: Springer-
Verlag).
I suggest you use 309 or 309L filler metal restricted to less than 15 FN instead of 312.
While there will be some alpha prime precipitation in the ferrite of this filler metal at
your service temperature, because there is limited ferrite, the extent of damage
should be comfortably within acceptable limits.
180
5.18 Using Mild Steel for Both Sides of a

Qualification Test for Mild Steel to Stainless?
We are having trouble qualifying welders for joining mild steel pipe to 304
? stainless pipe using 309L covered electrodes. The bend specimens fre-
quently break and show either a crack in the root pass or a brittle break in the
root. Our Procedure Qualification permits use of either one mild steel and one
stainless steel pipe or two mild steel pipes. We have been running the tests with
mild steel pipe on both sides of the joint because management doesnt want the
expense of stocking stainless in the welding lab. I think we are wasting more
money on retests than it would cost to stock the pipe. Do you think stainless pipe
on one side of the joint would improve our pass rate?
November 2001
Your company is not unique in this approach. In my opinion, your management is

being penny-wise and pound-foolish. 309L is an excellent electrode for joining 304
stainless to mild steel, but it is too lean in alloy content for joining mild steel to mild
steel. If the welder can manage to produce a low-dilution root pass in the mild steel to
mild steel joint, the root bead should be stable austenite with a little ferrite, which
should be ductile and crack-free. In that case, the welder would probably pass the test
because the remaining beads will be deposited, in part, on the stainless filler metal so
more normal dilution can be tolerated and still obtain austenite with a little ferrite.
If the welder gets a little more dilution in the root pass with mild steel on both sides of
the joint, the root pass will be austenite with almost no ferrite. That microstructure is
very susceptible to hot cracking along the weld centerline. That is almost certainly
what happened when the bend test sample failed due to a pre-existing crack in the
root pass. A pre-existing hot crack can be identified by the discoloration (dull gray or
blue) of the crack surface when it is broken open.
The weld metal will solidify as austenite (and may hot crack again) if the welder gets
more or less normal dilution in the root pass. But, because it is still leaner due to dilu-
tion, that austenite is not stable and transforms to martensite on cooling. The marten-
site in this case is brittle and fractures with little bending. If there is no hot crack, the
fracture will be bright and silvery in color, with cleavage facets. If there is a hot crack,
the fracture surface of the crack will most likely be discolored dull gray or blue. In
either case, the bend test fails.
Table 1 lists typical compositions for ASTM A106 Grade B pipe, which is a commonly
used mild steel pipe, along with a typical 309L electrode composition and a typical 304
base metal composition. Table 2 lists calculated root pass compositions when 309L is
deposited on a joint where both sides are A106 Grade B steel and the dilution is as low
as 25 through as high as 40%. Table 3 lists calculated root pass compositions when
309L is used to join A106 Grade B to 304 stainless steel, but only for 30 and 40% dilu-
tion. In the calculations for joining A106B to 304, each of the two base metals is
assumed to contribute equally to the dilution, so, when the dilution is 40%, 20% is
assumed to come from each base metal.
181
Table 1Typical A106B and 304 Base Metal

and 309L Filler Metal Compositions
%C % Mn % Si % Cr % Ni % Mo % Cu %N FN
A106B 0.10 0.80 0.05 0.10 0.10 0.05 0.10 0.008
304 0.04 1.50 0.40 18.50 10.00 0.10 0.10 0.030 3.5
309L 0.03 1.50 0.40 24.00 13.00 0.10 0.10 0.060 13.5
Table 2Calculated Root Pass Compositions for Various Dilutions

A106B Welded to A106B with 309L Filler Metal
Dilution %C % Mn % Si % Cr % Ni % Mo % Cu %N FN
25% 0.047 1.33 0.31 18.03 9.78 0.09 0.10 0.047 1.7
30% 0.051 1.29 0.30 16.83 9.13 0.08 0.10 0.044 0.4
35% 0.055 1.26 0.28 15.64 8.48 0.08 0.10 0.042 0
40% 0.058 1.22 0.26 14.44 7.84 0.08 0.10 0.039 0
Table 3Calculated Root Pass Compositions for Various Dilutions

A106B Welded to 304 with 309L Filler Metal
Dilution %C % Mn % Si % Cr % Ni % Mo % Cu %N FN
30% 0.042 1.40 0.35 19.59 10.62 0.09 0.10 0.048 4.0
40% 0.046 1.36 0.33 18.12 9.82 0.09 0.10 0.044 1.9
Figure 1 plots the A106 Grade B base metal and the 309L filler metal on the WRC-
1992 Diagram, with the axes extended to zero and the martensite boundary for 1%
Mn included. A tie-line is drawn between the A106B composition and the 309L compo-
sition, and all possible mixtures of the two materials must lie along that line. Then
the points corresponding to 25, 30, 35, and 40% dilution are plotted along the tie-line.
There are two important criteria for predicting a crack-free ductile weld. First, the
composition of the diluted weld metal should lie below and to the right of the dashed
line that separates the FA region from the AF region. This dashed line is not exactly
182
Figure 1ASTM A106 Grade B Welded with 309L on the WRC-1992 Diagram
parallel to any one iso-ferrite line; it extends from over 6 FN at the upper right to
about 1 FN at the lower left. Above and to the left of this dashed line, the solidification
mode is predicted to be primary austenite (austenite is the first phase to freeze), and
the weld is predicted to be sensitive to hot cracking. Below and to the right of this
dashed line, the predicted solidification mode is primary ferrite (ferrite is the first
phase to freeze), and the weld is predicted to be highly resistant to hot cracking.
The second important criterion is that the predicted composition lie above and to the
right of the martensite boundary. Such compositions are predicted to contain no mar-
tensite as-welded, and are, therefore, expected to be ductile. Below and to the left of
this boundary, compositions are expected to contain enough martensite to make them
brittle and fail a 2T bend test. Compositions within the shaded area of the boundary
are unpredictable.
It can be seen in Figure 1 that only the 25% dilution point satisfies both criteria. Both
30 and 35% dilution fail the first criterion. These compositions are expected to be sen-
sitive to hot cracking because they are predicted to have nearly zero FN and to solidify
as primary austenite. The 40% dilution weld fails both criteria. Due to martensite
presence, even if it doesnt hot crack, it is expected to be too brittle to pass a bend test.
Forty percent dilution may sound high for covered electrodes, but a root pass with a
thin land, which is normal for full penetration from one side in pipe, can easily
achieve this level.
183
The analysis for the case of using two mild steel pipes for the joint indicates only
rather low-dilution root passes are likely to be successful. It is difficult for welders to
produce such low-dilution root passes with complete fusion of the root. Under these
circumstances, it is not surprising you are having trouble with welder qualification.
Contrast this situation with one using 304 pipe, depicted in Figure 2. Here, a tie-line
is first drawn between the two base metals. Assuming each contributes equally to the
root pass weld dilution, the midpoint of this tie-line corresponds to a sort of synthetic
base metal that is diluting the 309L filler metal. So, a second tie-line is drawn from
this midpoint to the 309L composition. The diluted root pass will lie along this second
tie-line. Points corresponding to 30 and 40% dilution are indicated in Figure 2. Both
30 and 40% dilution root passes satisfy the criteria for crack-free ductile welds. They
are predicted to solidify as primary ferrite and to contain no martensite. Even more
than 40% dilution can be tolerated. Therefore, welds of 304 to A106B with 309L filler
metal should be consistently crack-free and ductile. There should be no difficulty in
passing bend tests to qualify welders.
To conclude, I think you would obtain a much higher (and more realistic) rate of suc-
cess in qualifying welders for joining mild steel pipe to 304 stainless pipe by using 304
stainless for one side of the joint.
Figure 2ASTM A106 Grade B Welded to 304

with 309L Filler Metal on the WRC-1992 Diagram
184
5.19 Procedure Qualification for 416 to 304 Bar

Stock?
We have been trying to qualify a procedure in order to weld test samples
? for a bend test for an in-house certification. The material is 3/8 5 3 in.
416 stainless steel bar stock welded to the same size 304 stainless steel bar
stock. It is a V-groove butt joint with a 1/4-in. root opening and a 3/8 1-1/2 7 in.
backing bar of 304 stainless steel. We are using GTAW with 308L welding wire,
100% argon, and a preheat of 400500F. The bend tests are breaking next to the
weld heat-affected zone. According to the Welding Handbook (Vol. 4, Materials
and ApplicationsPart 2, page 250) 308 or 309 filler metal should be able to be
used. We also need to pass the tensile test when qualifying the procedure. Would
312 stainless steel filler be better to use? What changes can we make to ensure
the coupons pass the bend test?
March 2002
You may be asking for the impossible. You didnt indicate to which standard the 416 is
purchased, but, since you state it is bar stock, I will assume it is purchased to ASTM
A582/A582M, Specification for Free-Machining Stainless Steel Bars. Type 416 stain-
less steel bar is a martensitic stainless steel, very similar in composition to 410 stain-
less steel bar, which is specified in ASTM A276, Standard Specification for Stainless
Steel Bars and Shapes. The difference between 416 and 410 is the high sulfur in the
416, which makes it more easily machinable but more difficult to weld. Table 1 com-
pares the compositions of these two steels along with the composition of Type 304 bar
stock as given in ASTM A276 and AWS A5.9 ER308L filler metal.
Martensitic stainless steels, such as 410 and 416, can be provided in a variety of heat
treatment conditions to achieve various combinations of strength and hardness.
ASTM A582/A582M Type 416 does not have a strength requirement, but it does have
Table 1Stainless Steel Compositions
Steel C, % Mn, % P, % S, % Si, % Cr, % Ni, %
416 0.15 1.25 0.06 0.15 1.00 12.00 to Not

max. max. max. min. max. 14.00 Specified
410 0.15 1.00 0.040 0.030 1.00 11.50 to Not

max. max. max. max. max. 13.50 Specified
304 0.08 2.00 0.045 0.030 1.00 18.00 to 8.00 to
ER308L 0.03 1.00 to 0.03 0.03 0.30 to 19.50 to 9.00 to

max. 2.50 max. max. 0.65 22.00 11.00
185
a hardness requirement of 248 to 302 Brinell, which converts to approximately 116 to

146 ksi (800 to 1000 MPa) tensile strength. The heat-affected zone (HAZ) of the 416
will be at least as hard as the base metal in the as-welded condition, which results in
a rather large strength mismatch with both the 304 base metal and the ER308L filler
metal. The 304 base metal and the filler metal are likely to have tensile strengths in
the vicinity of 80 ksi (550 MPa). This mismatch with the 416 base metal and 416 HAZ
will produce strain concentration at the weld interface during bending, likely leading
to fracture with only modest overall bending. A transverse tensile should fracture in
the 304 base metal, assuming no cracking in the weldment.
But, even if you make a sound weldment, I doubt you can pass an ASME 2T bend test
with either 410 or 416 base metal, at 248 to 302 Brinell, on one side of the joint, 304
base metal on the other side of the joint, and ER308L filler metal in the as-welded
condition. I should note there is no elongation requirement for 416 stainless in ASTM
A582/A582M. A 2T bend test requires about 20% elongation in the material, and I
doubt the 416 stainless would pass such a test without a weld in it. If I wanted 410
stainless to pass the 2T bend test, I would want the 410 to be annealed at 1350 to
1400F (730 to 760C), or mill-annealed, either of which would soften the 410 to below
200 Brinell hardness and increase its ductility to more than 20% elongation. Because
of the sulfide inclusions in the 416 stainless, I am not even sure that such an anneal,
which would reduce the hardness to below the ASTM A582/A582M requirements,
would make 416 pass the 2T bend test before welding, let alone after welding.
A change to ER312 stainless filler metal might improve the bending angle before frac-
ture in the as-welded condition, but I still doubt it can successfully pass a 2T bend
test. The main benefit of using the ER312 would be to improve the strength match
with the 416 stainless. The tensile strength of 312 weld metal is typically about 110
ksi (760 MPa), which would reduce the strain concentration at the weld interface. But,
if you select 312 filler metal, that would preclude using any sort of postweld anneal to
improve joint ductility. Although useful for improving ductility in 410 or 416 stainless,
the 1350 to 1400F anneal will seriously embrittle 312 filler metal because the ferrite
in the 312 will transform to hard, brittle, sigma phase. So, 312 filler metal is only use-
ful in the as-welded condition, which leaves the HAZ hard.
You indicated that fracture in bending is occurring in the 416 HAZ. It is quite possible
you are actually getting hot cracks in the HAZ or in the weld metal near the HAZ
before bending even begins. The words free-machining in the title of ASTM A582/
A582M are invariably a tip-off to expect hot cracking problems in the weld metal and
heat-affected zone. The high sulfur that makes 416 free-machining also tends to pro-
duce a lot of hot cracking problems. Even the high ferrite of 312 filler metal wont
guarantee freedom from hot cracking when welding 416 stainless.
In short, I dont think you can successfully pass a 2T bend test with a weldment that
includes 416 stainless, regardless of filler metal used. If it is essential a 2T bend test
be passed with martensitic stainless welded to 304 stainless, I suggest you change
from 416 stainless to 410 stainless. If the weldment must be used in the as-welded
condition, purchase the 410 in the mill-annealed condition and try ER312 filler metal.
If you can use a postweld heat treatment, stick with ER308L filler metal and anneal
at 1350 to 1400F (730 to 760C) after welding. You will find a little sigma in the
ER308L after PWHT, but not enough to cause you to fail the bend test.
186
While the Welding Handbook indicates a sound weld, including 416 stainless, can be
made with 308L or 312 filler metal, it does not indicate a 2T bend test can be passed. The
Welding Handbook is only giving a suggestion for a sound weld with limited ductility.
5.20 320 to 316L?

I have to weld Type 320 stainless to 316L stainless. I have tried using 316L
? filler metal, but ran into a lot of centerline cracking. Why did it crack, and
what filler metal should I use? Would 320 be a good choice?
January 2003
Type 320 stainless is a very high nickel stainless steel. The weld produced with 316L
filler metal contained no ferrite in the root pass due to nickel pickup from the 320 base
metal. Lack of ferrite makes the weld metal sensitive to hot cracking. Table 1 lists typ-
ical compositions of 320 stainless steel base metal, 316L base metal, and 316L covered
electrode filler metal. With covered electrodes, dilution of about 30% is normally
expected, with half of that dilution coming from each side of the joint. So the root pass
composition can be expected to consist of 15% 320 base metal, 15% 316L base metal,
and 70% 316L filler metal. This calculated root pass composition is included in Table
1. The chromium equivalent (Creq), nickel equivalent (Nieq), and the calculated Ferrite
Number (FN) for each composition, according to the WRC-1992 Diagram, are also
included in Table 1.
Use of 320 filler metal, which cannot contain any ferrite due to its high nickel content,
will be no better than use of 316L filler metal. Type 320 (or Type 320LR) filler metal is
not a good solution.
Several other filler metals could be considered. The most likely would be 309L,
309MoL (to be renamed 309LMo in the next revision of AWS A5.4), 312, and 2209. Of
Table 1Typical Compositions of 320 and 316L Base Metals,

E316L Covered Electrode, and Root Pass Weld Metal
Metal %C % Cr % Ni % Mo % Nb % Cu %N Creq Nieq FN
320 0.02 20.00 34.00 2.50 0.30 3.50 0.02 22.70 36.00 0
316L 0.02 17.00 12.00 2.30 0.20 0.02 19.30 13.10 2.90
E316L 0.03 18.50 12.00 2.30 0.20 0.06 20.80 14.30 4.30
Root Pass 0.027 18.50 15.30 2.33 0.045 0.70 0.048 20.90 17.40 0
187
these, 312 is a good choice for many dissimilar metal combinations, but, because both
sides of this joint are very low carbon while 312 typically contains on the order of
0.08% C, which is not low, I would tend to avoid that selection out of concern for infe-
rior corrosion resistance in the joint. The other three candidate filler metals are inter-
esting to examine using the same sort of analysis as in Table 1. This is done in Table 2.
Again, 30% dilution is assumed, half of the dilution coming from the 316L side and
half coming from the 320 side of the joint.
You can see from Table 2 that the 309L root pass has insufficient ferrite (1.6 FN), so
hot cracking could be expected. The 309MoL root (3.5 FN), at first glance, looks
acceptable, but this is not the case. To understand that, it is necessary to refer to the
WRC-1992 Diagram to see where each of the root pass weld compositions lieFigure
1. The 320 composition is entirely out of sight, well above the maximum 18 Nieq of the
diagram. The 309L root pass and the 309MoL root pass are both slightly above the
maximum 18 Nieq of the diagram as well, but close enough to 18 to get a fairly good
idea of the situation.
There is no single magic FN that separates compositions on the WRC-1992 Diagram

that are sensitive to hot cracking from those that are not. However, the diagram
includes a heavy-dotted line that separates the compositions into those that solidify as
primary austenite (AF region) and are therefore sensitive to hot cracking, and those
that solidify as primary ferrite (FA region) and are therefore not sensitive to hot
cracking. That dotted line runs at a slight angle to the nearby iso-ferrite lines. At the
lower left end of the heavy, dotted line, it is near 1 FN. At the upper-right end of the
heavy, dotted line, it is above 5 FN. It is common to use, as an initial design assump-
Table 2Typical Compositions of 309L, 309MoL,

and 2209 Filler Metals and Typical Root Pass
Weld Compositions in Joining 320 to 316L
Stainless with Those Electrodes
Metal %C % Cr % Ni % Mo % Nb % Cu %N Creq Nieq FN
309L 0.03 23.50 13.50 0.20 0.20 0.06 23.80 15.70 10.50
309L 0.027 22.07 16.28 0.86 0.045 0.70 0.048 23.00 18.40 1.60
Root
E309MoL 0.03 23.00 13.50 2.20 0.20 0.06 25.20 15.70 16.80
E309MoL 0.027 21.65 16.28 2.26 0.045 0.70 0.048 23.90 18.40 3.50
Root
E2209 0.03 22.50 9.00 3.00 0.10 0.15 25.50 13.10 35.4
E2209 0.027 21.30 13.20 2.82 0.045 0.60 0.111 24.20 16.50 9.0
Root
188
Figure 1WRC-1992 Diagram Including Diluted Root Passes
tion, the rule of thumb that Ferrite Numbers of greater than 3 or 4 will most likely
be free from hot cracking. However, for higher alloy compositions, more than 5 FN
may be necessary. This feature of the WRC-1992 Diagram agrees well with experi-
ence. For example, it is well known that the 16-8-2 composition of AWS A5.4, which, at
less than 2 FN, plots in the FA region near the lower-left end of the heavy, dotted line
of the WRC-1992 Diagram, is not troubled by hot cracking. But the 317LM composi-
tion, which, at a little more than 4 FN, plots in the AF region near the upper-right end
of the heavy, dotted line, is sensitive to hot crackingmore than 5 FN is necessary to
make that filler metal insensitive.
So it can be concluded from this analysis that neither 309L nor 309MoL are safe
choices for the joining of 320 to 316L stainless steel base metals. But the 2209 duplex
stainless steel filler metal is a different story. Its high ferrite content results in a root
pass estimated at 9 FN, which seems safely on the FA side of the heavy, dotted line in
the WRC-1992 Diagram. The 2209 root pass matches, or slightly overmatches, the
molybdenum content of the two base metals, which also makes it attractive. The cor-
rosion resistance of 2209 filler metal is generally better than that of 316L base metal,
and its tensile strength is higher than that of 316L. I suggest you consider 2209 filler
metal for the joining of 320 to 316L. The only reservation I would have about that
selection is if the weldment were intended for service where ferrite is detrimental
urea manufacture or cryogenic temperatures, for example.
189
5.21 SAW Cladding with 309L, DCEN?

We are attempting to qualify a submerged arc cladding of 309L stainless
? on mild steel. To do so, we must pass a 2T bend test of a cross section of the
cladding and base metal. We keep failing the bend test with brittle cracks in the
first layer of cladding. The cladding seems to have excessive dilution because the
chemical composition of the first layer seems very lean (i.e., 12% Cr and 6% Ni),
and because we find martensite in the cladding. We have seen several references
(e.g., Welding Handbook, Vol. 4, 8th ed. page 399) that state lower dilution is
obtained with direct current electrode negative (DCEN) polarity than with the
direct current electrode positive (DCEP) polarity we had been using. So we tried
DCEN, but with no better resultsthe bend tests still failed in a brittle manner.
And the DCEN first layer has about the same composition we saw with DCEP.
Why doesnt DCEN reduce the dilution? And what can we do to produce cladding
that will pass the bend test?
May 2003
There are two levels of excessive dilution in cladding mild steel with ER309L, regard-
less of the welding process you use. In the more severe level of dilution, as you are
experiencing, the chromium and nickel from the stainless filler metal are diluted to
such an extent that the austenite formed at high temperature is unstable and trans-
forms to martensite during cooling. The martensite is brittle and cracks during bend-
ing. If you succeed in reducing the dilution somewhat, you can easily end up with a
deposit that is stable austenite at room temperature but contains no ferrite. In that
case, it is likely to form hot cracks during solidification, and you will fail the bend test
despite the stable austenite, because the hot cracks will open up during bending. So
you have to make a major reduction in dilution, not a minor reduction.
The conventional wisdom that DCEN produces lower dilution than DCEP in sub-
merged arc welding (SAW) is only part of the solution to your problem. There are two
other parts. The first part of the solution is the ER309L filler metal itself. Its composi-
tion needs to be balanced by the producer so that it does more than just satisfy the
composition limits of ER309L in the AWS A5.9 standard. The filler metal composition
needs to be further restricted so that, when it is plotted on the WRC-1992 Diagram,
the diagram will predict a high Ferrite Number for the filler metal, at least 10 FN.
Steel mills do not like to produce heats of steel for drawing into welding wire that are
so high in predicted FN because their yield in reducing the as-cast steel into rod suit-
able for wire drawing is lower with higher FN. They prefer to produce what I refer to
as generic 309L with low FN, but this does not make good welding filler metal
because it has little tolerance for dilution from mild steel without hot cracking. The
filler metal supplier has to demand, from the steel mill, high ferrite 309L for process-
ing into wire, and you have to insist on getting high ferrite ER309L.
The second part of the solution is in your choice of the other welding conditions
besides polarity. The same page of the Welding Handbook that you cited also indicates
that increasing the welding current increases the dilution. Or, conversely, reducing
the welding current reduces the dilution. And on the same page it notes that increas-
190
ing contact-tip-to-work distance reduces dilution, and decreasing the pitch or step-
over between beads in a layer will reduce dilution. The degree to which you can reduce
dilution by increasing contact-tip-to-work distance and/or by decreasing step-over is
greatly affected by your ability to consistently place the welding electrode in a
straight line. As a result, while some reduction in dilution is possible, major improve-
ments are not usually available by these two avenues.
Welding current is the most important way of reducing dilution in DCEN overlay with
submerged arc. Welding current is largely controlled by wire feed speed, which also
sets the deposition rate. So there is a tendency to run higher wire feed speeds (WFS)
to obtain higher deposition rates, but this is exactly the wrong direction to go for
reducing dilution. Figure 1 shows four single-pass deposits of stainless on 1-in. (25-
mm) mild steel made using DCEN and 1/8-in. (3.2-mm) diameter wire. The welding is
done at progressively higher wire feed speed and current, with progressively higher
travel speed to obtain consistent deposit cross-sectional area above the plate surface.
Figure 1 shows that consistent cross-sectional area of deposit above the plate surface
was obtained for all four deposits, but the penetration into the plate is vastly differ-
ent, increasing with increasing wire feed speed (current). By comparing the cross-
sectional area above and below the plate surface, you can see that the deposit made
with 60 in./min WFS has less than 20% dilution, while that made with 180 in./min
WFS has about 50% dilution. With 309L filler metal of at least 10 FN, less than 20%
dilution will produce a deposit composition that is stable austenite with a little ferrite.
Once the first layer of low dilution cladding is successfully deposited, the deposition of
subsequent layers, if needed, can be done with higher productivity procedures. But it
is essential for the first layer to be deposited under low dilution conditions to obtain a
crack-free overlay that will consistently pass a 2T bend test.
Figure 1DCEN Stainless SAW Deposits on Mild Steel
191
5.22 Hardfacing of Stainless Components (e.g., 40

RC for a Forceps for a Veterinarian to Extract
Teeth from Horses)?
We are making forceps for large animal tooth extraction out of 304L stain-
? less steel and want to apply a corrosion-resistant hardfacing to the sur-
faces that grip the tooth. We would like to achieve about 40 to 50 Rockwell C
hardness. We will machine or grind a gripping surface on the deposit afterward.
We have gas tungsten arc welding equipment available for the application. Would
a deposit of 410 or 420 stainless be suitable? If not, what would you recommend?
September 2003
There are several aspects to this question. First, I dont think you could achieve 40
Rockwell C hardness with a 410 deposit under the best conditions. I think the best
you could hope for would be in the mid-30s Rockwell C because this alloy does not con-
tain enough carbon. On the other hand, the 420 composition does contain enough car-
bon to achieve 40 to 50 Rockwell C hardness under good control of composition. Note,
however, that 420 would be considerably less corrosion resistant than the 304L, but it
may be adequate for your application.
A second aspect to the question is the matter of dilution. It is common to suppose 30 to

40% dilution with arc welding processes, but gas tungsten arc welding (GTAW) is dif-
ferent. In GTAW, dilution can range from very low levels (20% or even less) to very
high levels (80% or even more) because the filler metal addition is independent of the
arc conditions. So the composition, and therefore the properties, of a GTAW hardfac-
ing of 420 stainless over 304L stainless could be quite variable, especially in the first
layer of the surface. Table 1 lists a typical composition of 304L base metal, a typical
composition of ER420 filler metal, and the composition of the first layer of weld hard-
facing of ER420 on 304L base metal at various levels of dilution. Phosphorus and sul-
fur are omitted from the table, and Mo, Cu, and N are listed at trace levels normally
encountered.
The important feature to notice from Table 1 is that the nickel and chromium are
increasing in the deposit as the dilution from the 304L base metal increases. The
extra nickel and chromium, as compared to that of the ER420 composition, tend to
stabilize the austenite that forms at high temperature. If there are enough extra
nickel and chromium, the weld deposit will only partially transform to martensite, or,
worse for your hardfacing purposes, not transform at all. We can get an idea of what
will happen by plotting these compositions at various dilutions on the WRC-1992
Diagram, modified with extended axes and the martensite boundary developed for low
Mn levelsFigure 1.
The martensite boundary, shown as a gray band in Figure 1, separates compositions

that will contain no martensite (those above and to the right of the boundary) from
those that will contain a lot of martensite (those below and to the left of the bound-
ary). Within the gray band, it cannot be said with certainty that there will be any
martensite. There may or may not be martensite. The tie-line between the ER420 and
192
Table 1Typical 304L and ER420

Compositions and Various Diluted Compositions
C, Mn, Si, Cr, Ni, Mo, Cu, N,

% % % % % % % %
304L 0.02 1.00 0.40 19.0 10.00 0.10 0.10 0.03
ER420 0.30 0.40 0.30 13.0 0.01 0.05 0.05 0.01
Dilution
20% 0.224 0.52 0.32 14.2 2.08 0.060 0.060 0.014
30% 0.216 0.58 0.33 14.8 3.07 0.065 0.065 0.016
40% 0.188 0.64 0.34 15.4 4.06 0.070 0.070 0.018
50% 0.160 0.70 0.35 16.0 5.05 0.075 0.075 0.020
60% 0.132 0.76 0.36 16.6 6.04 0.080 0.080 0.022
70% 0.104 0.82 0.37 17.2 7.03 0.085 0.085 0.024
Figure 1WRC-1992 Diagram with ER420 and 304L Compositions
193
the 304L compositions includes all possible mixtures of the two alloys. Because 304L
is the base metal, higher dilution compositions appear closer to the 304L composition.
It can be noted from Figure 1, then, that only compositions with less than 20% dilu-
tion can be expected to form a lot of martensite. Such low dilution is difficult to main-
tain with GTAW. I would expect inconsistent results if you hardface forceps with this
approach unless you apply more than one layer of ER420.
A third aspect is that, even if you are successful in obtaining martensite, you may not
obtain the expected benefit, because martensite is not particularly effective at resist-
ing abrasion. Hardness is not the primary factor determining abrasion resistance.
Microstructure is much more important. In particular, a microstructure that includes
a lot of carbides is much more abrasion resistant than is a martensite microstructure
of the same hardness. Most hardfacing alloys containing a lot of carbides are not very
corrosion resistant and tend to develop transverse cracks, which likely would be objec-
tionable for animal dentistry. However, some cobalt-based hardfacing alloys, high in
carbide content, can be deposited crack free, at least on small surfaces like the grip-
ping surface of a forceps, and have good corrosion resistance. With these, I believe you
can make a crack-free, single-layer surface on 304L with good corrosion and abrasion
resistance. In the form of bare rods for GTAW, they are classified according to AWS
A5.21:2001, Specification for Bare Electrodes and Rods for Surfacing. Table 2 lists
compositions and typical multilayer hardness ranges from AWS A5.21cobalt makes
up the remainder of the composition. Of these, I suggest you try the RCoCr-C classifi-
cation because, in a single layer with dilution from the 304L, the deposit hardness
should be close to what you are seeking.
Table 2Cobalt-Based Hardfacing Alloys High in Carbides(a)
C, % Mn, % Si, % Cr, % Ni, % Mo, % Fe, % W, % Rc
RCoCR-A 0.9 1.0 2.0 26.0 3.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 23.0
to max. max. to max. max. max. to to
1.4 32 6.0 47.0
RCoCr-B 1.2 1.0 2.0 26.0 3.0 1.0 3.0 7.0 34.0
1.7 32.0 9.5 47.0
RCoCr-C 2.0 1.0 2.0 26.0 3.0 1.0 3.0 11.0 43.0
3.0 33.0 14.0 58.0
RCoCr-F 1.5 1.0 1.5 24.0 21.0 1.0 3.0 11.0 32.0
to max. max. to to max. max. to to
2.0 27.0 24.0 13.0 46.0
RCoCr-G 3.0 1.0 2.0 24.0 4.0 1.0 3.0 12.0 52.0
4.0 30.0 16.0 60.0
(a) From AWS A5.21:2001, Specification for Bare Electrodes and Rods for Surfacing.
194
5.23 Filler Metal and PWHT for 410 to 316L, 30

Rockwell C?
I have to weld a 410 clevis to the end of a 316L rod. Several hundred such
? weldments are to be made. The rod is actually a 3-in.-diameter pipe with
1/2-in. wall thickness. The clevis is essentially an end cap for the pipe. It was
purchased already hardened and tempered to 30 Rockwell C to provide wear
resistance against the clevis pin. The joint is to be full penetration and will be
subject to fatigue loading and possibly impact, so I feel I need to perform a
postweld heat treatment (PWHT) to temper the HAZ of the 410. In the Septem-
ber 2000 Stainless Q&A column about welding 410 to 304L, filler metal Alloys
312, 309L, and 308L were all considered to be suitable for that joint. But nothing
was said about PWHT. There will be 316L filler metal on the jobsite for other
joints involving the 316L parts of the assembly. Assuming that 312, 309L, and
308L would be suitable filler metals, would 316L also be a suitable filler metal?
And what PWHT can I use without damaging the hardness of the 410 clevis?
July 2004
I agree that PWHT seems prudent for the sake of tempering the HAZ of the 410.
There is a concern about whether there will be a little ferrite in the root pass. If there
is ferrite in the root pass, subsequent passes should also contain ferrite and be crack
resistant. However, when PWHT comes into the picture, there is a new consider-
ationthe possibility of forming sigma phase in the weld metal. Lets work backward
from the PWHT to the weld metal analysis, and then consider sigma phase.
Hardness of 30 Rockwell C indicates, from the tempering curves for 410 given in the
ASM Heat Treaters Guide, that tempering was accomplished at about 1050F (565C).
Any PWHT you might perform, so long as it is at no higher temperature than the orig-
inal tempering temperature, will not appreciably soften the 410. However, it will
soften the HAZ of the 410, which could be as hard as 45 Rockwell C in the as-welded
condition. The Heat Treaters Guide recommends avoiding tempering in the range of
700 to 1050F (370 to 565C) for parts requiring high toughness. Tempering in the
range of 1050 to 1125F (565 to 605C) is indicated for achieving 25 to 31 Rockwell
C. Of course, the lower hardness would be achieved at the higher tempering tempera-
ture. So I would suggest that your PWHT be done at the low end of this latter temper-
ature rangeabout 1050F.
Since you would prefer to use 316L filler metal for your joint, the next thing to con-
sider is whether 316L filler metal will provide some ferrite in the diluted root pass
between 316L base metal and 410 base metal, so you wont need to worry about solidi-
fication cracking.
Table 1 provides typical compositions for 410 and 316L base metals, and for 316L
filler metals, so that prediction of root pass weld microstructure can be made using
the WRC-1992 Diagram.
The 316L base metal is typically designed by the steel mill to solidify as primary fer-
rite, but, due to cost considerations, is generally relatively lean in composition. Since
195
Table 1Typical Compositions for 316L and 410 Base Metals and 316L Filler
Metal, with Predicted FN from the WRC-1992 Diagram Component
C Mn Si Cr Ni Mo Cu N
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
ASTM A240 0.03* 2.0* 1.0* 16.0 10.0 2.0

Type 316L 18.0 14.0 3.0
Typical 316L 0.02 1.5 0.4 17.0 12.0 2.2 0.2 0.03
ASTM A240 0.15* 1.00* 1.00* 11.5
Type 410 13.5
Typical Type 410 0.11 0.5 0.4 12.5 0.1 0.05 0.05 0.01
AWS A5.4 0.04* 0.5 0.90* 17.0 11.0 2.0 0.75*

E316L-XX 2.5 20.0 14.0 3.0
Typical E316L-XX 0.03 1.5 0.4 19.0 12.0 2.2 0.2 0.06
AWS A5.9 0.03* 1.0 0.30 18.0 11.0 2.0 0.75*

ER316L 2.5 0.65 20.0 14.0 3.0
Typical ER316L 0.02 1.5 0.4 19.0 12.0 2.2 0.2 0.06
AWS A5.22 0.04* 0.5 1.0* 17.0 11.0 2.0 0.75*
E316LTX-X 2.5 20.0 14.0 3.0
Typical E316LTX-X 0.02 1.5 0.4 19.0 12.0 2.2 0.2 0.06
*Maximum permitted by the specification.
you didnt state which welding process you plan to use, Table 1 covers filler metals for
all of the major welding processes. You will note that the filler metals tend to be richer
in chromium content than the 316L base metal, so they tend to have higher ferrite
content than the potential ferrite of the base metal.
You will also note that the typical compositions of the various forms of 316L filler
metal are similar, even though there are differences in specific alloy limits for the dif-
ferent product forms. As a result, the various processes produce similar ferrite con-
tents in the undiluted weld metal. So it is adequate to conduct the ferrite prediction
using the SMAW E316L-XX composition, which generally tends to produce the lowest
FN due to slightly higher carbon content than the other filler metals.
Table 2 lists the calculated chromium and nickel equivalents for the two base metals,
the undiluted E316L-XX filler metal, and the typical 30% dilution root pass joining
the two base metals. In calculating the root pass composition, the assumption is made
that each base metal contributes equally to the dilution, i.e., 15% of the root pass com-
position comes from each base metal.
Figure 1 presents the ferrite prediction graphically. The synthetic base metal, com-
posed of 50% 316L and 50% 410 lies at Point B on the diagram. The predicted weld
metal composition, Point W at 5.1 FN, lies in the region of compositions that solidify
196
Table 2Calculated Chromium and Nickel Equivalents and

Predicted FN for the Root Pass of 316L and 410 Base Metals
Welded with E316L-XX SMAW Electrodes
Alloy WRC-1992 Creq WRC-1992 Nieq Predicted FN
316L base metal 19.2 13.3 2.1
410 base metal 12.55 4.15 Not Applicable
Equal mix of base metals 15.88 8.73 Not Applicable
E316L-XX filler metal 21.2 14.25 6.0
Root pass 19.6 12.59 5.2
Figure 1Joining 410 and 316L with E316L-XX Electrodes
as primary ferrite. Furthermore, if the dilution were to be significantly increased by

using submerged arc welding, Figure 1 indicates that more than 50% dilution would
still provide about 4 FN and primary ferrite solidification. And even at higher dilu-
tion, the predicted root pass weld metal composition would lie in the region of primary
ferrite solidification. Further, the root pass composition lies comfortably above the
martensite boundary, so weld metal cold cracking will not be an issue. Of course, a pre-
heat of about 300F (150C) is advisable to avoid cold cracking in the HAZ of the 410.
197
The last concern is the possibility of sigma phase transformation in the ferrite of the
weld metal during PWHT at 1050F (565C). Experimental data for formation of
sigma phase in 316L weld metal are shown in Welding Metallurgy of Stainless Steels
by Erich Folkhard (published by Springer-Verlag). These data indicate that sigma
phase formation is quite slow at 1050F, showing little effect after ten hours at 600C
(1110F). Even if it did form, there is not enough ferrite to transform to sigma to pro-
duce any significant embrittlement. So no difficulty with sigma phase is anticipated.
Accordingly, 316L filler metal is considered to be a quite satisfactory selection for your
application.
5.24 Welding 316L to CD4MCuASTM A890-1A vs.

1B?
Im trying to qualify a procedure for welding an annealed CD4MCu pump
? casting (ASTM A890/A890M Grade 1A) to a 316L pipe. We will be doing
many of these assemblies. I used ER316L filler metal and the GTAW process.
Transverse bend tests are failing near the fusion boundary on the CD4MCu side.
It doesnt seem like this should be a filler metal problem, but Im not sure. What
do I need to do to pass the bend test?
September 2004
I agree that the filler metal is not the problem. The heat-affected zone (HAZ) of the
CD4MCu is, in all likelihood, the problem. CD4MCu is a very old duplex stainless
steel. It dates from before the time that steelmakers understood the importance of
nitrogen to successful welding of duplex stainless steels.
Nitrogen is essential to the formation of a reasonable amount of austenite in the weld

HAZ of duplex stainless steels in the as-welded condition. CD4MCu castings are put
into a proper balance of ferrite and austenite by a high-temperature heat treatment,
normally by holding at 1900F (1040C) minimum for some time, followed by water
quenching. When the steel is reheated, as by welding, to near the melting tempera-
ture range, all of the austenite transforms to ferrite, so that the HAZ is essentially
100% ferrite. Then rapid cooling, as normally happens during welding, prevents refor-
mation of the austenite so that the HAZ close to the fusion boundary is nearly 100%
ferrite when it reaches room temperature. This ferrite is very coarse grained, which
makes it brittle. Furthermore, the small amount of tramp nitrogen normally present
causes precipitation of chromium nitrides because ferrite can dissolve very little nitro-
gen. The chromium nitrides add to the brittleness, as well as being very detrimental
to corrosion resistance.
The solution to the problem of getting good HAZ properties in the as-welded condition
is to add more nitrogen. Nitrogen is a very small atom and it diffuses more rapidly
than any other alloying element in the steel. The nitrogen promotes austenite forma-
tion at higher temperatures, where diffusion is more rapid, which allows virtually all
of the nitrogen to find some austenite, and to promote formation of more austenite,
before the temperature falls to a level that is too low for further diffusion. The steel-
198
makers have recognized this problem, and the ASTM A890/A890M standard provides
for two additional casting grades that are essentially the same in alloy composition as
CD4MCu, except for the requirement for nitrogen. The two additional grades are
Grade 1B (also known as CD4MCuN) and Grade 1C (also known as CD3MCuN).
Table 1 compares the compositions of the three related grades of castings as given in
ASTM A890/A890M. Due to the nitrogen requirement, Grade 1B is more weldable
than Grade 1A. However, Grade 1B can still have rather low nitrogen, as little as
0.10%.
In my April 2000 Stainless Q&A column, I noted the change in ASTM A240 in the
minimum nitrogen for the duplex stainless Alloy 2205, from UNS S31803 (0.080.20%
nitrogen) to UNS S32205 (0.140.20% nitrogen) to make it more weldable. The same
applies in your situation. The ASTM A890/A890M Grade 1C, with 0.22% minimum
nitrogen, is even better for as-welded properties. If you have the liberty to change
your casting specification, I suggest you do that immediately.
If you must weld the low-nitrogen CD4MCu (Grade 1A), I am afraid that you cannot
pass a bend test unless you anneal after welding. When you are heating to the anneal-
ing temperature, sigma phase will form in the CD4MCu and probably also in the 316L
weld metal that is diluted by the CD4MCu. You must dissolve the sigma at the
annealing temperature, which likely means that you will have to anneal at 2050F
(1120C) to be safe. This is because the high nickel content of 316L mixed with the
high chromium and molybdenum of the CD4MCu makes sigma stable to temperatures
above the 1900F minimum temperature that ASTM A890/A890M mentions for
Table 1Composition Requirements (%) for CD4MCu and Similar Castings
ASTM A890 Gr. 1A ASTM A890 Gr. 1B ASTM A890 Gr. 1C

(CD4MCu) (CD4MCuN) (CD3MCuN)
UNS No. J93370 J93372 J93373
C 0.04 max. 0.04 max. 0.030 max.

Mn 1.00 max. 1.0 max. 1.20 max.
P 0.040 max. 0.04 max. 0.030 max.
S 0.040 max. 0.04 max. 0.030 max.
Si 1.00 max. 1.0 max. 1.10 max.
Cr 24.526.5 24.526.5 24.026.7
Ni 4.756.00 4.76.0 5.66.7
Mo 1.752.25 1.72.3 2.93.8
Cu 2.753.25 2.73.3 1.401.90
N 0.100.25 0.220.33
199
annealing duplex stainless steels. After a few hours at 2050F, you must water quench
immediately upon removing the weldment from the furnace.
I also suggest that you do not attempt to delay annealing of the casting until after
welding. In the as-cast condition, CD4MCu, CD4MCuN, and CD3MCuN will all con-
tain a great deal of sigma phase, which makes the metal very brittle.
The shrinkage associated with welding is likely to cause cracking in the casting near
the weld. I suggest that the casting be annealed before welding, and again after weld-
ing, if you have to stick to CD4MCu as the casting material. You should certainly not
have to anneal after welding if you can switch to the CD3MCuN grade of casting. If
you use the CD4MCuN grade, it will be a gamble as to whether or not you need to
anneal after welding to pass the bend testthat will depend largely upon how much
nitrogen you can get. If the composition is very close to the top limit for nitrogen, you
stand a good chance of not needing to anneal again after welding.
It is noteworthy that ASTM A890/A890M requires only 16% minimum tensile elonga-
tion for Grades 1A and 1B, but it requires 25% minimum for Grade 1Cthis too is
related to the nitrogen content.
5.25 Autogenous GTAW of 316L to 430?

We are preparing to weld 430 to 316L by autogenous GTAW in a single
? pass followed by annealing at 800C. Do you think it would be safe to weld
by melting about 70% 316L and 30% 430? The Schaeffler diagram predicts some
martensite would form in the as-deposited weld. If we have to use a filler to join
430 to 316L, do you think 309L would be better than 308L? Or would annealing
cause some sigma phase to form in the weld made with 309L?
May 2005
Table 1 lists the composition ranges for 430 and 316L as given in ASTM A240, along
with typical compositions of the two alloys.
Type 316L is an austenitic alloy, and cannot contain any martensite unless severely
deformed. Type 430 is a nominally ferritic 17% Cr stainless steel. I say nominally
ferritic because, while it appears fully ferritic in the annealed condition as you get it
from the steel supplier, the alloy generally contains on the order of 0.06% carbon, in
the form of scattered chromium carbides. At very high temperatures, the carbon dis-
solves and promotes partial transformation of the alloy to austenite. On normal cool-
ing, as associated with GTAW, this austenite transforms to martensite, so the alloy is
not fully ferritic in the as-welded condition. The martensite in turn reduces the overall
ductility of the joint so that brittle fracture becomes a possibility. At the same time,
chromium carbides tend to precipitate on ferrite/ferrite grain boundaries. This causes
local chromium depletion in the ferrite beside the carbides, so the alloy becomes sensi-
tive to intergranular corrosion as a result of welding. These are issues for the heat-
affected zone (HAZ) of the 430, regardless of whether the weld is made with or with-
out filler metal. If the weld metal is also Type 430, they become issues for the fusion
zone as well.
200
Table 1Compositions of 316L and 430 Stainless Steels
Composition, % (Single Value is a Maximum)
C Mn P S Si Cr Ni Mo N
316L, A240 0.030 2.00 0.045 0.030 0.75 16.0 10.0 2.00 0.10
to to to
18.0 14.0 3.00
316, Typical 0.020 1.00 0.020 0.010 0.40 17.0 12.0 2.20 0.02
430, A240 0.12 1.00 0.040 0.030 1.00 16.0 0.75

to
18.0
430, Typical 0.06 0.50 0.020 0.005 0.50 17.0 0.10 0.04 0.02
When the 430 is diluted into 316L, as in the situation you describe in your question,
there could be some martensite in the fusion zone. If, as you indicate, you are able to
control dilution so that the fusion zone consists of 70% 316L and only 30% 430, I do
not think you will get martensite in the fusion zone. The Schaeffler diagram, Figure 1,
predicts a little martensite, 10% ferrite and a lot of austenite in the fusion zone at 70%
316L. It also predicts a trace of martensite with a lot of ferrite in the HAZ. I have
found the Schaeffler diagram to be particularly poor at predicting martensite. In par-
ticular, a 430 HAZ or undiluted fusion zone will contain a lot of martensite1.
The WRC-1992 Diagram, Figure 2, predicts a fusion zone microstructure that is

comfortably out of the martensite region for your controlled dilution, containing about
10 Ferrite Number, balance austenite. It also predicts quite a bit of martensite in
the HAZ of the 430, along with some ferrite and some austenite. This HAZ prediction
for martensite is much more in line with experience1 than is the Schaeffler diagram
prediction.
There will clearly be a lot more martensite in the 430 HAZ than in the weld fusion
zone, whether you achieve the aim of 70% 316L-30% 430 in the fusion zone, or only
the normal 50% 316L-50% 430. So the fusion zone should not be a concern at all. The
HAZ of the 430 is the biggest concern. Because it is likely to be high in martensite, it
could be at risk for hydrogen-induced cracking. However, the GTAW process is a very
low-hydrogen process, so I think that hydrogen-induced cracking would be unlikely.
Annealing, such as the PWHT at 800C (1470F) you mention, accomplishes several
things in the HAZ of the 430, as well as in the weld metal if it is also 430. First,
annealing severely tempers the martensite so that it becomes essentially ferrite with
scattered carbides. This restores the ductility of the 430 to virtually that of the
unwelded 430. Second, annealing allows diffusion of chromium into the chromium-
1. Lippold, J. C., and Kotecki, D. J. 2005. Welding Metallurgy and Weldability of Stainless
Steels, Chapter 5, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, N.J.
201
Figure 1Schaeffler Diagram Showing 430, 316L, and a 70% 316L Fusion Zone
Figure 2WRC-1992 Diagram Showing 430, 316L, and a 70% 316L Fusion Zone
202
depleted zones beside the grain boundary carbides. This restores the corrosion resis-
tance. Diffusion of chromium in austenitic stainless steels is very slow, so that many
hours at temperatures like 800C are required to heal chromium-depleted zones if
they form in austenitic stainless steels like 316. But diffusion of chromium in ferrite is
at least 100 times as fast as in austenite, so that only a few minutes at 800C is suffi-
cient to restore the corrosion resistance.
Because the carbon content is very low in Type 316L, it is unlikely that it would
become sensitized either during welding or during the annealing heat treatment that
benefits the 430. The 430 corrosion resistance should be less than the 316L corrosion
resistance. So the overall weldment, after annealing at 800C, should have very good
properties.
In summary, I think you are on very solid ground for a successful GTA weldment of
316L to 430 without filler metal if you anneal at 800C, even if you are not successful
at controlling dilution to 70% 316L-30% 430 in the fusion zone.
5.26 Welding Stainless to Cast Iron

We need to weld some cast iron fittings to the outside of 304L stainless
? steel tanks. We tried 309L filler metal, as we would for mild steel fittings,
but with the cast iron fittings, the welds cracked. Would 312 filler metal work?
March 2006
Type 312 filler metal is quite risky for this application. Even though 312 is a very high
ferrite filler metal, dilution from the high carbon in the cast iron (typically 2.5 to more
than 4% C) will result in a root pass without any ferrite. Such a root pass of stainless
steel weld metal is often prone to centerline cracking, especially when there is signifi-
cant restraint.
I have made small fillet welds with little restraint using 312 filler metal, without
cracking, but the weld metal tends also to be rather brittle. Furthermore, the stain-
less weld metal has a high coefficient of thermal expansion, which leads to high heat-
affected zone (HAZ) stresses and can result in HAZ cracking in the cast iron.
The problem with weld brittleness stems from the carbon in the cast iron combining
with the chromium in the 312 to produce networks of eutectic chromium carbides in
austenite. Because the eutectic forms networks, there are plenty of available brittle
paths for cracking. You may encounter transverse cracking as the weld cools. These
cracks are similar to those encountered in welding the hardfacing filler metals that
are described as primary austenite with austenite-carbide eutectic. In fact, the weld metal
microstructure of the 312 root pass looks very much like that hardfacing microstructure.
Figure 1 shows the root pass microstructure of a fillet weld between 304L stainless
and gray cast iron using 312 stainless filler metal. The microstructure, as expected,
contains no ferrite. The structure is mainly cellular austenite, with the austenite-
carbide eutectic in the intercellular spaces. The eutectic exists as nearly continuous
networks.
203
(A) Optical Photomicrograph (B) Scanning Electron Microscope Image
Figure 1Root Pass Microstructure of Gray

Cast Iron Welded to 304L with 312 Covered Electrode
The EDAX capability of the scanning electron microscope was used to positively iden-
tify the fine eutectic constituent, visible in the SEM image of Figure 1, as chromium
carbides with partial substitution of iron for chromium.
Figure 2 shows HAZ cracking in a gray iron casting fillet welded to 304L with a 312
electrode. The HAZ has little ductility because it is a mixture of white iron, marten-
site, and retained austenite.
A better choice for this joint is electrodes of the AWS A5.15 classification ENi-CI.
Table 1 compares the composition requirements of the 312 covered electrodes of AWS
A5.4 with that of the ENi-CI covered electrodes. It is noteworthy that the ENi-CI con-
tains no chromium, so the only chromium available in the weld metal must come from
the 304L base metal. This small amount of chromium picked up in the weld metal by
dilution is not enough to produce significant chromium carbides in the microstructure
of that weld, as will be seen later.
The high-nickel ENi-CI filler metal produces a root pass between cast iron and 304L
that consists of nickel-alloy solid solution and spheroidal graphite, as shown in Figure
3. With the ENi-CI electrodes, not all of the carbon in the root pass comes from the
cast iron dilutiontypically ENi-CI weld metal contains more than 1% carbon to pro-
mote spheroidal graphite formation in the nickel-base alloy that contains no strong
carbide formers. The spheroidal graphite does not provide networks of brittle micro-
structure for easy crack propagation. The nickel-alloy filler metal also has a much
lower coefficient of thermal expansion so it strains the cast iron HAZ much less than
does the 312 filler metal due to shrinkage during cooling. No cracking was found in
the samples welded for this column.
Furthermore, the weld metal from ENi-CI is much softer than that from 312 filler
metal when used to make the gray cast iron to 304L joint. The range of hardness mea-
surements made on the root pass of fillet welds, shown in Table 2, illustrate this point
204
Table 1Composition Requirements for E312-XX and ENi-CI Covered Electrodes
All-Weld Metal Chemical Composition, %

(Single Values are Maxima Unless Otherwise Stated)
C Mn P S Si Cr Ni Mo Fe Cu Al
E312-XX 0.15 0.2 0.04 0.03 0.90 28.0 8.0 0.75 bal. 0.75 N.S.
to to to
2.5 32.0 10.5
ENi-CI 2.0 2.5 N.S. 0.03 4.0 N.S. 85 N.S. 8.0 2.5 1.0
min.
Figure 2Heat-Affected Zone Figure 3Spheroidal Graphite

Crack in Gray Cast Iron Welded in ENi-CI Root Pass Between
to 304L with 312 Filler Metal Gray Cast Iron and 304L
Table 2Vickers Hardness of Root Pass Weld Metal (Gray Cast Iron to 304L Joints)
Filler Metal 500 g Vickers Hardness
E312-17 336 to 374

ENi-Cl 175 to 201
quite well. The softer nickel filler metal yields more easily during cooling than does
the harder stainless filler metal, lessening the strain on the HAZ.
In view of the above evidence, I suggest that you use the ENi-CI type filler metal for
your joints of cast iron to 304L stainless steel.
However, be aware that the HAZ of the cast iron is still a zone of potential cracking or
fracture because it consists of a thin layer of white iron (cementite) at the fusion
205
boundary with high-carbon martensite and retained austenite beyond the white iron.
It is much less likely to crack when the ENi-CI filler metal is used than when 312
filler metal is used. But shock loading can still produce fracture laterthat is always
the risk in welding cast iron.
5.27 Filler Metal for 409 to 410?

We want to weld annealed 410 stainless to 409 stainless in a butt joint con-
? figuration. Then the 410 is to be induction hardened locally to provide a
metal-to-metal wear-resistant surface. The steels are 1/4 in. thick. Should we use
409 filler metal, 410 filler metal, or something different like 309L? The process is
to be gas metal arc welding (GMAW).
July 2006
Both 409 and 410 stainless steels nominally contain about 12% chromium, as do the
matching filler metals. But 409 and 410 are not similar in microstructure. The 409 is
a ferritic stainless steel, while 410 is martensitic. Type 410 stainless steel can be pur-
chased in several heat treatment conditions including annealed and fully hardened.
In the annealed condition, 410 is soft and ductile, like 409. You can induction harden
the annealed 410, but not the 409. Table 1 lists the composition ranges for the three
versions of 409 commonly produced, and for the 410, according to ASTM A240. The
main differences are in the higher carbon content of the 410, and the addition of tita-
nium to the 409. The titanium, in combination with very low carbon content, is what
accounts for 409 being a ferritic steel instead of a martensitic steel.
Table 1Compositions of 409 and 410 Stainless Steels
Composition1, wt-%
UNS Nb
Type Number C Mn P S Si Cr Ni N Ti (Cb)
409 S40910 0.030 1.00 0.040 0.020 1.00 10.5 0.50 0.030 6(C+N) 0.17
to to 0.50
11.7
409 S40920 0.030 1.00 0.040 0.020 1.00 10.5 0.50 0.030 8(C+N) 0.10
to min.; 0.15
11.7 to 0.50
409 S40930 0.030 1.00 0.040 0.020 1.00 10.5 0.50 0.030 Ti+Nb = [0.08+8
to (C+N)] to 0.75;
11.7 Ti = 0.05 min.
410 S41000 0.15 1.00 0.040 0.030 1.00 11.5 N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S.
to
13.0
1. A single value is a maximum unless otherwise indicated.
206
Type 409 cannot be hardened by heat treatment.The choice of filler metal depends
upon what you expect for mechanical properties of the weld metal. If you were to use
ER410 filler metal, the microstructure of the first weld pass would be partially mar-
tensite and partially ferrite, with the martensite predominant. Such weld metal, in
the as-welded condition, will have very limited ductility. Any strain in the weld metal
will be confined to the ferrite because it is much softer than the martensite. A longitu-
dinal bend test will likely produce a break in the fusion zone. The weld metal will tend
to fracture with limited elongation, which is usually not desirable.
On the other hand, if you use ER409 or EC409 filler metal, the weld metal will also be
a mixture of ferrite and martensite, but this time with ferrite predominant. Again, the
dual microstructure will cause weld metal strain to concentrate in the ferrite, with the
result that the ductility of the weld will be low, though not as low as if the filler metal
were ER410. But the weld will likely fail a longitudinal bend test.
So in either case, the ductility of the weld metal will be low, though possibly adequate
for your needs. You need to decide if limited weld ductility is adequate for your
needs. The only approach that would result in high-ductility weld metal with 409 or
410 filler metal would be to anneal the weld metal at a temperature on the order of
1400F (760C) after welding. Then it really doesnt matter whether you use 409 or
410 filler metal. The anneal transforms the martensite in the 410 and in the weld
metal into ferrite with dispersed carbides, and its properties will be similar to those of
409. This would have to be done before induction hardening of the portion of the 410
base metal that you want to harden, because annealing of the weld would also anneal
any other hardened zone. If you anneal first, the weld will likely pass a longitudinal
bend test.
The third alternative would be to use ER309L or ER309LSi filler metal. In this case,
the weld metal will be mainly austenite with some ferrite. That mixture of microstruc-
tures generally has high ductility because both austenite and ferrite are soft and have
similar strength levels. This is the best microstructure you can get in the as-welded
condition, in terms of highest ductility of the weld metal. Then the only hard area will
be the heat-affected zone (HAZ) of the 410 base metal. However, if you apply postweld
heat treatment (PWHT) at approximately 1400F (760C), you will have a serious risk
of converting the ferrite in the weld metal (but not in the 409 base metal) into sigma
phase, which would seriously embrittle the weld metal.
In summary, the best weldment ductility in the as-welded condition (including induc-
tion hardening of a portion of the 410 away from the weld) would be obtained with
ER309L or ER309LSi filler metal. Second-best as-welded weldment ductility would be
obtained with ER409 or EC409 filler metal. ER410 filler metal would produce the low-
est as-welded weldment ductility.
On the other hand, if you anneal the weldment at approximately 1400F (760C), fol-
lowed by induction hardening of a portion of the 410 base metal, you can have high
weldment ductility with either 409 or 410 filler metalit makes little difference. I
would not recommend this anneal for ER309L or ER309LSi filler metal in this joint.
207
5.28 Inhomogeneities in SAW Overlay with Metal

Core Stainless?
We produce two-layer cladding of carbon steel with overalloyed stainless
? steel metal cored wire by submerged arc welding. Cross sections of the
cladding often, but not always, reveal oddly etching features, typically at the
interface between two passes. A concern has been expressed that these oddly
etching areas might be low in alloy content and therefore susceptible to selective
corrosion if exposed to the corrosive medium.
July 2007
Figure 1 shows a metallographic cross section of the weld. The oddly etching areas
can be more easily seen in the first layer, but they are also visible in the second layer,
as indicated by arrows in the figure. This cross section was examined in a scanning
electron microscope. Line scans were performed across these oddly etching areas, giv-
ing semiquantitative analysis profiles for iron, chromium, nickel, manganese, and sil-
icon. Every one of the areas, both first layer and second layer, had the same general
composition profile.
Figure 2 shows the SEM image of the oddly etching area in the first layer of the cross
section of Figure 1 that can be easily seen just above the scale marker in the lower
right corner of Figure 1. It should be noted that there is a mirror image inversion
between Figures 1 and 2, such that the center of curvature of the oddly etching area
appears in Figure 1 to be to the right of the area, while it appears to be to the left of
the area in Figure 2. The path of the line scan for alloy element concentration is indi-
cated by the dark line across this area in Figure 2.
Figure 1Cross Section of Figure 2An SEM Image of an

Two-Layer Stainless Oddly Etching Area in the
Steel Cladding First Layer of Figure 1
208
Figure 3 shows the semiquantitative composition of the weld metal along this line
scan. The direction of scanning is from left to right in both Figure 2 and Figure 3. It
can be clearly seen that the chromium and nickel contents are higher in the oddly
etching area than they are in the bulk of the weld metal. Correspondingly, the iron
content appears lower in that area. Manganese and silicon exhibit no discernable com-
position change in the area versus in the bulk of the weld metal.
So the oddly etching areas are indeed inhomogeneities, but they are actually richer in
alloy content than the bulk of the weld metal, not leaner as was originally supposed.
One might wonder how such inhomogeneities arise. The flux in use is known to not
contain any alloy element additions, so that can be ruled out as the source. The metal
cored wire is made with virtually all of the alloy elements in the core. It is expected
that the melting of the mild steel tube does not always occur at the same rate as the
melting of the core alloy elements. Then incomplete mixing of the melted core with the
bulk of the weld pool gives rise to the inhomogeneities.
Since the inhomogeneities are overalloyed, not underalloyed, they are unlikely to lead
to preferential corrosion in these areas.
Figure 3SEM line scans for Fe, Cr, Ni, Mn,

and Si Across the Oddly Etching Area of Figure 2
209
5.29 Root Pass Cracking in SAW Weld of Mild Steel

to 304L?
We are making 1-in.-thick butt joints between 304L stainless steel and
? ASTM A516-70 carbon steel, using submerged arc welding with ER309L
electrode. We use a single U-groove with a 1/4-in. root radius, 1/8-in. land, no root
opening, and 20-deg included angle. Then we backgouge and finish the joint with
FCAW or SMAW. We have a lot of trouble with centerline cracking in the SAW
root pass, unless we substitute SMAW with 309L filler metal for the root pass.
What can we do to make SAW root passes successfully?
March 2009
The root cause of your root cracking problem is dilution from the carbon steel side
causing the root pass to solidify as primary austenite, instead of the desired primary
ferrite. The root pass cracks during solidification and it ends up with virtually zero
ferrite content. Shielded metal arc welding gets around this problem by reduced dilu-
tion as compared to SAW, but its productivity is low.
One way to combat this is by using DCEN polarity for SAW at low wire feed speed
(low current) to reduce dilution to levels comparable to those obtained with SMAW.
But that is a relatively low productivity approach also, and the DCEN root pass bead
shape is often not desirable.
A more robust (forgiving) approach is to design the joint to get away from symmetry.
The problem with high dilution in a symmetrical joint, such as a single U-groove, is
that the dilution comes approximately equally from the two base metals. It is dilution
from the carbon steel side that is responsible for loss of ferrite in the weld metal. Dilu-
tion from the 304L side of the joint has a more-or-less negligible effect on root pass fer-
rite content (or solidification mode). That is because common stainless steels like
304L, 316L, 317L, 321, and 347 are generally designed by the steelmaker to solidify as
primary ferrite, just like common stainless steel weld metals like 308L or 309L. This
helps them to get a higher yield from hot working of the steel. You can easily establish
this for yourself by simply making a GTAW bead-on-plate weld without filler metal on
one of these base metalsyou will almost certainly find a magnetic response in the
weld indicating presence of ferrite, even if the base metal is completely nonmagnetic
before welding.
The approach I suggest is to make the joint preparation asymmetrical so that more of
the dilution comes from the 304L side of the joint than from the carbon steel side of
the joint. This can be done simply by, for example, changing from a single U-groove
joint preparation to a compound joint preparation consisting of a single J preparation
on the 304L and a single bevel preparation on the A516-70, so that the SAW arc will
impinge mostly on the 304L. A second possibility is to insert a 304L stainless steel
backing bar into the joint, so that, again, the arc will impinge mostly on the 304L,
although in this case it is the backing bar. These two alternatives, as compared to
your symmetrical joint preparation, are sketched in Figure 1. Figure 1A is your sym-
metrical joint preparation, while Figure 1B and 1C are asymmetrical joint prepara-
tions as outlined above.
210
Figure 1Alternate Joint Preparations for

Carbon Steel to 304L with ER309L Filler Metal
In welding either the joint preparation of Figure 1B or that of Figure 1C, you should
still align the electrode along the joint preparation centerline, not along the 304L/
A516-70 interface. Then the weld bead will wash up onto the carbon steel without a
lot of penetration into it. Most of the arc energy will be spent melting 304L base metal
(possibly including the backing bar should you choose to use that) and ER309L elec-
trode. Because the joint preparation is asymmetrical, you should find that you will
have to backgouge a bit deeper in order to reach sound metal, but that is preferable to
cutting out a root pass with a centerline crack as you have been experiencing with the
symmetrical single U-groove joint preparation. In fact, this will be evidence that you
have achieved lower dilution from the carbon steel.
After a successful root pass, the arc impinges mainly on previously deposited weld
metal that contains ferrite, and the low dilution effect from the carbon steel side con-
tinues until joint completion.
Once you get the idea of the way this asymmetrical joint preparation works, I am sure
that you can come up with a number of variants on the approach to suit other situa-
tions. For example, the backing bar need not be inserted into the root for a single-side
joint preparationa 304L backing bar wider than the root opening could be used
underneath the joint preparation with the same effect. In that case, backgouging to
remove the backing bar would only have to remove the backing bar and very little of
the joint, so that only a very shallow backside weld, if any, would be needed to com-
plete the joint to full penetration.
211
This approach is not restricted to SAW. It can be used to improve solidification crack-
ing resistance in any situation in which a stainless steel expected to provide a bit of
ferrite (316L, for example) is to be joined to carbon steel or even to a stainless steel in
which no ferrite would be expected (310 or 320, for example).
5.30 Autogenous GTA Fillet Weld of 304L Over

Carbon Steel?
I need to make a series of lap fillet welds of 304L stainless steel, 1/16 to
? 1/8 in. thick, on mild steel sheet and plate that are anywhere from 1/16
to 1/4 in. thick. In every case, the stainless steel thickness will be less than or
equal to the mild steel thickness. I am considering making these welds by GTAW
without filler metal. Is this an acceptable approach?
May 2009
Depending upon how long the welds are, there can be significant risks in this
approach. An autogenous weld (no filler metal) will be composed entirely of a mixture
of the two base metals. In an autogenous lap fillet weld, as sketched in Figure 1, the
majority of the weld metal composition comes from the overlapping piece, which, from
your description, would be the 304L stainless steel piece. It would be reasonable to
assume that the fused metal will be somewhere between 60 and 90% stainless steel,
with the remainder being mild steel. If the welding is done manually, as I expect, the
dilution is likely to vary all across that range, so we need to consider all of the possible
compositions in that range.
For estimating fusion zone solidification mode and microstructure, only the carbon,
chromium, nickel, and nitrogen contents are of interest. The 304L stainless composi-
tion might typically be 0.02% C, 18.5% Cr, 10.5% Ni, and 0.03% N, with a calculated
Ferrite Number (FN) of about 4, and solidification in the primary ferrite mode. It is
very common for steel producers to aim for about 4 FN in 304L base metal. The mild
steel composition might typically include 0.15% C, with no significant chromium,
nickel, or nitrogen. There are two concerns: what will be the solidification mode of the
fusion zone, and what will be the alloy content (austenite stability) of the fusion zone.
Figure 1Sketch of Autogenous GTAW Lap Joint of 304L on Mild Steel
212
The solidification mode bears directly on the likelihood of solidification cracking in the
weld metal. The austenite stability bears directly on the likely mechanical properties
of the fusion zone and the possibility of cold cracking.
Given that the fusion zone is expected to consist of 60 to 90% 304L stainless, the com-
position range of the fusion zone can be easily calculated, as is shown in Table 1. The
chromium equivalent (Creq) and nickel equivalent (Nieq) for each composition, calcu-
lated according to the WRC-1992 Diagram (Figure 2), are also included in Table 1. The
actual fusion zone composition is likely to vary between the 60% and 90% 304L limits.
The boundary between the AF and FA solidification modes is emphasized as the heavy dashed line.
Figure 2WRC-1992 Diagram with Typical 304L and Mild Steel
Table 1Typical Composition of Mild Steel and

304L Stainless, and Diluted Fusion Zone
Mild Steel 304L Stainless 90% 304L 60% 304L
C 0.15 0.02 0.033 0.072

Cr 18.50 16.650 11.100
Ni 10.50 9.450 6.300
N 0.03 0.027 0.018
Creq 0.00 18.50 16.65 11.10
Nieq 5.25 11.80 11.15 9.18
213
Figure 2 has been slightly modified from its original published form to emphasize the
dashed line that forms the boundary between the region labeled AF (in which solidi-
fication occurs in the primary austenite mode and in which solidification cracking is
quite likely) and the region labeled FA (in which solidification occurs in the primary
ferrite mode and in which solidification cracking is highly unlikely). Then the locus of
all possible fusion zone compositions for the case of an autogenous GTA weld between
typical 304L and mild steel has been added to the WRC-1992 Diagram. The locus of
all possible fusion zone compositions is marked as mild steel on the lower-left end
and 304L on the upper-right end, to indicate where those compositions lie. Then the
composition corresponding to a fusion zone of 90% 304L and the composition corre-
sponding to 60% 304L are indicated on this locus of all possible compositions in Figure
2. Compositions between these two dilutions will lie between these two points on the
WRC-1992 Diagram.
From Figure 2 it can be seen that the point labeled 90% is barely inside the region of
primary ferrite solidification, which would indicate that solidification cracking of such
a composition would be highly unlikely. However, traversing slightly downward and to
the left (less 304L and more mild steel in the fusion zone) along the locus of all possi-
ble fusion zone compositions would cross over into primary austenite solidification at
slightly less than 90% 304L. For such compositions, solidification cracking becomes a
distinct possibility.
Furthermore, it can be seen that the locus of all possible fusion zone compositions
crosses the shaded region labeled Martensite Boundary @ 1% Mn at slightly less
than 90% 304L. Compositions below and to the left of this boundary are predicted to
transform to martensite. Compositions within the shaded boundary may or may not
transform to martensitethere is a degree of uncertainty in the precise location of the
boundary, which is the reason it is shown as a shaded region rather than a distinct
line. If the fusion zone transforms extensively to martensite, it will be brittle and
could be subject to cold cracking. This is where the weld length issue comes inthe
longer the weld is, the more likely that occurrence of cold cracking becomes due to
greater longitudinal restraint. The GTAW process normally produces very little diffus-
ible hydrogen, so the tendency to cold cracking of martensite is likely to be low, but not
negligible.
In conclusion, it is feasible to do what you propose, but it is not without risk. Probably
the greatest risk is of crater cracking if the fusion zone solidifies in the primary auste-
nite mode. To combat that, I suggest that you train your welders to employ current
downslope control and run the arc up on the 304L when terminating each weld, as
this can minimize crater cracking tendencies. You also need to assess the mechanical
property requirements of the joints. In particular, is ductility necessary in the fusion
zone? If not, then you can probably accept some martensite in the fusion zone, but you
should also take into account the possible consequences of a failure in case a given
weld cracks or fractures. You should also recognize that it is difficult, in an autoge-
nous GTAW procedure, to get a fillet weld throat large enough to make the weld
strength equal the 304L base metal strength without a lot of penetration into the mild
steel, so the load-bearing ability of the fillet is likely to be limited. Finally, I suggest
that you plan for extensive visual examination of the joints to look for cracks and any
evidence of excessive penetration into the mild steel.
214
5.31 Autogenous GTA Fillet Weld of Carbon Steel

Over 304L?
I need to make a series of lap fillet welds of mild steel, 1/16 to 1/8 in. thick,
? on 304L stainless steel sheet and plate that is anywhere from 1/16 to 1/4 in.
thick. In every case, the mild steel thickness will be less than or equal to the
304L stainless steel thickness. I am considering making these welds by GTAW
without filler metal. Is this an acceptable approach?
July 2009
Note that this is the converse of the question published in my May 2009 column in
which 304L stainless steel was the upper piece of the joint. The question was asked
for both combinations, but the approach for developing the response is different in the
case where mild steel is the upper piece. Figure 1 shows a sketch of the currently pro-
posed situation.
As in the May column, in an autogenous lap fillet weld, the fused metal is likely to
consist of between 60 and 90% of the upper piece, in this case the mild steel. The
remaining 10 to 40% of the fused metal will come from the 304L. Since the majority of
the fused metal is from the mild steel, the discussion of May 2009 concerning solidifi-
cation mode as primary ferrite or primary austenite is not germane to the current sit-
uation. Instead, hardenability, susceptibility to hydrogen-induced cracking (HIC) of
the fusion zone, and likely mechanical properties of the fusion zone are the main con-
cerns because the fused metal must have compositions akin to low-alloy-steel weld
metal. For 60 to 90% mild steel, balance 304L, Table 1 shows calculated fused metal
compositions beginning with typical mild steel and 304L compositions.
Table 1 also includes calculated carbon equivalent and composition parameter for
the fused metal. These indexes are used for estimating hardenability, likelihood of
HIC in a mild steel or low-alloy steel HAZ of a given composition, and preheat temper-
atures appropriate for avoiding HIC. While not originally developed for fused metal,
they have applicability to fused metal as well as the HAZ. Annex I of AWS D1.1/
D1.1M:2008, Structural Welding CodeSteel, indicates that, when the CE exceeds
0.50% and the carbon content exceeds 0.10%, the steel is highly hardenable and very
Figure 1Sketch of Autogenous GTAW Lap Joint of Mild Steel on 304L
215
Table 1Typical Base Metal and Calculated Fused Metal Compositions
Alloy Calculated Fused Metal Compositions
90% Mild 80% Mild 70% Mild 60% Mild

Composition 304L Mild Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel
C, % 0.02 0.15 0.14 0.12 0.11 0.10
Mn, % 1.20 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90
Si, % 0.40 0.20 0.22 0.24 0.26 0.28
Cr, % 18.50 0.00 1.85 3.70 5.55 7.40
Ni, % 10.50 0.00 1.05 2.10 3.15 4.20
CE, % N.A. 0.30 0.74 1.18 1.62 2.05
Pcm N.A. 0.19 0.29 0.39 0.49 0.59

Notes: CE is the carbon equivalent (CE = C + Mn/6 + Si/6 + Cr/5 + Mo/5 + V/5 + Ni/15 + Cu/15) according to
Annex I of AWS D1.1/D1.1M: 2008). Pcm is the composition parameter (Pcm = C + Si/30 + Mn/20 + Cu/20 + Ni/
60 + Cr/20 + Mo/15 + V/10 + 5B) according to Annex I of AWS D1.1 M:2008). These are two common ind exes
used for estimating hardenability and susceptibility to hydrogen-induced cracking.
N.A. = Not Applicable.
susceptible to HIC. At all dilution levels shown for fused metal in Table 1, the CE
exceeds 0.70% and the carbon content is at least 0.10%. At this carbon level, if the
fusion zone transforms to 100% martensite, hardness of 35 to 40 Rockwell C would be
expected. On the other hand, the CE of the mild steel is much too low for there to be
concern about its HAZ, and the HAZ of the 304L is of no concern because it cannot be
hardened by a thermal cycle. So, only the fusion zone is of concern with regard to
hardenability, HIC, and mechanical properties.
Autogenous GTAW produces very little diffusible hydrogenless than 1 ppm would
normally be expected. This is considerably below the lowest hydrogen level envisioned
in Annex I of AWS D1.1/D1.1M. So the guidance given there should be quite conserva-
tive for the present situation. Applying the guidance of this Annex for the case of 90%
mild steel in the fusion zone and less than 3/8 in. thickness, the Pcm approach would
call for less than 65F (18C) preheat to avoid HIC. For 80% mild steel in the fusion
zone, the needed preheat would likely be 140F (60C). The cases of 70% mild steel
and 60% mild steel in the fusion zone go beyond any level of Pcm considered by the
D1.1 Code. Preheat above 300F (150C) may be needed to avoid cracking for these
latter two conditions, but you should be able to make the joint without HIC with
appropriate preheat. If you choose to go ahead, I suggest you study Annex I of the
D1.1 Code and use it to guide you in preheat selection.
If HIC can be avoided, the next concern is the needed mechanical properties of the
weld. Even with preheat of 300F or more, a weld fusion zone corresponding to any
of those shown in Table 1 is likely to exhibit very high strength, but very low ductility
216
and toughness. I would expect tensile strength between 120 and 170 ksi (830 and
1200 MPa), tensile elongation of less than 10%, and toughness on the order of 10 ft-lbf
(14 J) at room temperature from such a fusion zone as any of those shown in Table 1.
The root of the joint is a built-in notch, and the fillet size from autogenous GTAW is
likely to be considerably smaller than would normally be used with filler metal unless
your welding conditions produce higher dilution of the 304L into the fusion zone. I
think it would take very little mechanical strain to fracture the weld. You have to
decide if that is adequate for your application in view of the possible consequences of a
failure.
I dont think it is possible to consistently produce an autogenous GTAW lap fillet joint
of 90% mild steel in the situation proposed. Lesser amounts of mild steel (greater than
10% 304L) in the fusion zone are likely to have worse toughness and ductility. You
have to decide if this is acceptable for your application. My suggestion would be to
avoid this by using 309L filler metal with GMA or SMA for the fillet welds.
5.32 GTA Fillet Weld of Nitronic 60 to Carbon Steel?

We are building telescoping booms of 12-in.-square carbon steel tubing
? with Nitronic 60 stainless steel bars fillet welded to the carbon steel tub-
ing. The choice of Nitronic 60 is for galling resistance as these bars are to slide
over another steel surface. We have been trying manual GTAW with ER309L
filler metal but encountered a lot of centerline cracking in the welds. Is there a
better filler metal for this combination?
September 2009
Nitronic 60 stainless steel is known by the generic UNS Number S21800. It was orig-
inally developed by Armco Steel Co. some 30 or more years ago. It has been widely
applied for galling resistance. Table 1 lists the chemical composition as given in the
ASTM A276 specification for stainless steel bars. The noteworthy points about this
alloy are the high manganese, high nitrogen, and especially the high silicon as com-
pared to more common stainless steels like 304L.
From a welding point of view, the component of most concern is the nominally 4% Si.
Stainless steel weld metal that solidifies as primary austenite (i.e., austenite is the
Table 1Chemical Composition of S21800 Stainless Steel (wt-%)
C Mn Si Cr Ni N
0.10 max. 7.00 3.50 16.00 8.00 0.08
to to to to to
9.00 4.50 18.00 9.00 0.18
217
first phase to solidify from the liquid) is generally susceptible to solidification crack-
ing, and high silicon aggravates this tendency. The rather normal choice of ER309L
for filler metal for this joint is predicated on the idea that, with normal dilution, a
stainless steel to carbon steel joint will solidify as primary ferrite (i.e., ferrite is the
first phase to freeze). With primary ferrite solidification, the tendency to solidification
cracking virtually vanishes.
Normal dilution means about 30 to 35%, which is what would be expected with
SMAW, GMAW, or FCAW. With these processes, there is a relationship between arc
current and filler metal deposition rate, which usually maintains dilution in the
expected range. The problem with manual GTAW in a stainless steel to carbon steel
joint is that there is absolutely no relationship between arc current and filler metal
deposition rate. The welder adds filler metal on what he perceives as an as-needed
basis. As a result, literally any dilution from 0 to 100% is possible. Large excursions
from normal dilution are rather the norm in manual GTAW because welders almost
invariably melt more base metal than necessary.
Many years ago, Harry Espy of Armco Steel published an excellent paper discussing
the welding of nitrogen-strengthened stainless steels. In it, he noted that these base
metals, including S21800, and their filler metals, are designed to produce a small
amount of ferrite in the otherwise austenitic autogenous fusion zone. Today, we realize
that this small amount of ferrite is evidence of solidification as primary ferrite which
accounts for the high resistance to solidification cracking.
Excessive dilution of stainless steel compositions like S21800 and ER309L with car-
bon steel can convert the solidification mode of the fusion zone from primary ferrite to
primary austenite. This is so because carbon steel contains virtually no ferrite-pro-
moting elements like chromium, but a considerable amount of an austenite-promoting
elementcarbon. Normally, we can use a constitution diagram like the WRC-1992
Diagram to illustrate this and the effect of dilution on the solidification mode of dis-
similar metal joints. However, the WRC-1992 Diagram does not make realistic predic-
tions for Nitronic 60, as noted in the November 2002 Stainless Q&A column. The 1982
paper of Harry Espy includes a proposed constitution diagram, based on the old
Schaeffler Diagram, applicable to this steel. But even Espy did not propose to apply
that diagram to dissimilar metal joints.
If, as Espy indicated, the S21800 produces about 7 FN in an autogenous GTAW fusion
zone, and if the ER309L produces a normal 10 FN or so, then dilution of 40% or more
(20% from the carbon steel and 20% from the Nitronic 60) by GTAW into the ER309L
filler metal could be expected to result in primary austenite solidification. In such
high dilution, since the S21800 contains about 4% Si, the diluted fusion zone would be
expected to contain 1% or more silicon. This combination of primary austenite solidifi-
cation and high silicon, I believe, is the source of your solidification cracking.
Substitution of a higher-ferrite filler metal, such as ER312, for the ER309L filler
metal can maintain primary ferrite solidification even with considerably more dilu-
tion than 40%. However, ER312 filler metal is not as readily available as ER309L, and
ER312 is more costly. Another approach could be to mechanize the GTAW with
ER309L filler metal so that continuous wire feed would prevent excessive dilution and
wide dilution excursions. However, I suggest that a better approach would be to aban-
don GTAW for this application. Use of SMAW, GMAW or FCAW with 309L filler metal
218
properly designed for 10 or more FN would eliminate large excursions in dilution from
this application, and should eliminate the solidification cracking.
In general, I am not enthusiastic about using manual GTAW for dissimilar metal
joints involving stainless steel filler metal, such as ER309L, in which a small amount
of ferrite is expected, or in which solidification in the primary ferrite mode is expected.
This concern applies to many more situations than just your joint of S21800 to carbon
steel. It is very difficult with manual GTAW to maintain a consistent level of dilution.
As a result, wide excursions in dilution from the normally expected 30 to 35% are
likely. With high dilution comes the very real possibility that primary austenite solidi-
fication will occur in some portions of the weld, and centerline cracking can be the
result. SMA, GMA, and FCA are all better choices for the welding process for these
situations.
5.33 Welding 15-5PH to 304L?

We are fabricating a boom from 15-5PH stainless steel, which will be heat
? treated to the H1100 condition after all welding is finished. We want to
weld some attachments of 304L stainless to the boom, using pulsed gas metal arc
welding (GMAW-P). Would ER309L be the appropriate filler metal?
January 2010
The 15-5PH is a martensitic precipitation hardening (PH) stainless steel. It is essen-

tially a modification of the older 17-4PH stainless in which chromium is reduced and
nickel is increased to reduce or eliminate ferrite bands in the steel plate structure,
thereby improving the through-thickness strength and ductility. It is specified in the
AMS 5862 standard. This steel is normally supplied in Condition A, which consists
of annealing at about 1950F (1065C) followed by air cooling to ambient temperature,
which causes the steel to transform to martensite. In that condition, it is readily weld-
able because the martensite is low in carbon content, typically around 0.04%. All
martensitic PH stainless steels, in Condition A, can be aged to much higher strength
by a heat treatment at around 900F (480C) (Condition H900). In 15-5PH stainless
steel, the precipitates are mainly copper, and, formed at 900F, these precipitates
retain coherency with the martensite matrix, and the coherency produces strain fields
around the copper precipitates that remarkably harden the steel. The H1100 condi-
tion is an aging treatment at 1100F (595C), usually for about 4 h, which overages
the precipitates (renders them at least partially incoherent) to reduce the strength but
increase the toughness of the steel.
Table 1 shows the properties of 15-5PH stainless steel after a variety of heat treat-
ments. It can be noted that there is a significant decrease in strength going from Con-
dition H900 to Condition H1100. In fact, the minimum yield strength under Condition
H1100 is only slightly higher than under Condition A. However, the ductility under
Condition H1100 is considerably higher than that under Condition A, which is nor-
mally the main reason for selecting Condition H1100.
219
Table 115-5PH Stainless Steel Mechanical Properties
Tensile Yield
Strength, Strength, % Hardness,
Condition ksi (MPa) ksi (MPa) Elongation Rockwell C
A 1501 1101 81 331

1900 to 1950F (1030) (760)
(1040 to 1065C)
Solution anneal and air cooled
H900 1902 1702 151 40 to 472
900F (482C) (1310) (1170)
60 min.
H1100 1402 1152 151 32 to 382

1100F (593C) (965) (790)
4 hours
1. Typical properties according to the Allegheny Ludlum online Technical Data Blue Sheet for 15-5PH
steel.
2. AMS 5862 minimum requirement.
Since 304L is an austenitic stainless steel, the joint is one of dissimilar metals, so it is
rather normal to think of using a 309L filler metal. But this is not the best choice for
filler metal.
My concern with ER309L as a filler metal is the H1100 heat treatment. This is in the
temperature range where ferrite tends to transform to sigma phase. ER309L tends to
produce rather high ferrite content (on the order of 12 FN or so) in its weld metal, and
the ferrite is quite high in chromium, so it readily transforms to sigma. I think
ER308L is a better choice because its weld metal tends to lower ferrite content than
that of the ER309L, and the ferrite is lower in chromium, so it does not transform as
quickly or as extensively to sigma. Furthermore, ER308L is lower in cost than
ER309L.
Table 2 indicates typical chemical compositions of 15-5PH and 304L base metals, and
a typical composition of ER308L filler metal. These values can be used to predict
microstructures according to the WRC-1992 Diagram, as is done in Figure 1. As would
be expected, the 15-5PH composition plots in Figure 1 to the left and below the mar-
tensite boundary, indicating that this material would be virtually all martensite.
Although 15-5PH plots outside of the region where solidification mode boundaries are
known, its position suggests solidification as primary ferrite by extrapolating the
boundary between FA and AF solidification. So 15-5PH should be free of solidification
cracking issues. The 304L position is at slightly less than 4 FN, in the FA region of
primary ferrite solidificationthis is normal for 304L commercial products. The tie-
line indicating all possible mixtures of 304L and 15-5PH lies almost exactly along the
4 FN iso-ferrite line in the diagram. The midpoint of this tie-line is marked but not
labeled and indicates what can be thought of as a synthetic base metal consisting of
half 15-5PH and half 304L. The ER308L position is in the FA region of primary ferrite
220
Table 2Typical Compositions Used for Predicting

Microstructures on the WRC-1992 Diagram
Composition (wt-%)
Alloy C Cr Ni Nb Cu N
15-5PH 0.04 14.5 4.8 0.30 3.5
304L 0.02 19.0 10.0 0.2 0.03
ER308L 0.02 20.0 10.5 0.01 0.2 0.05
Figure 1The WRC-1992 Diagram
solidification, at about 8 FN. Then a second tie-line is drawn from the ER308L to the
synthetic base metal composition at the midpoint of the tie-line connecting the two
base metals. Finally, the position of the dissimilar metal weld at 30% dilution is indi-
cated along the second tie-line.
Examination of Figure 1 indicates that ER308L is metallurgically a very safe choice

for the weld between 15-5PH and 304L. The possible diluted weld metal compositions
along the second tie-line are all in the region FA of primary ferrite solidification, so no
difficulty with solidification cracking is expected. Further, the possible compositions of
diluted weld metal are all above the martensite boundary except for nearly 100% dilu-
tion (near the synthetic base metal composition), which is highly unlikely unless you
221
use autogenous GTAW instead of pulsed GMAW. So the weld metal can be expected to
be highly ductile. Finally, the diluted weld metal will be low enough in ferrite (8 FN or
less) so that no serious embrittlement due to sigma phase formation during the H1100
heat treatment would be expected.
ER308L is not the only appropriate choice, but it has the lowest cost and is the most
readily available. ER316L and ER16-8-2 would also be suitable choices, following a
similar analysis as was done in Figure 1.
5.34 ER307 vs. G 18 8 Mn Cracking Resistance in

Dissimilar Welds?
I have a 40-year-old WPS that calls for GMA welding of armor with AWS
? A5.9 Class ER307 filler metal. When I go on-line to find a source of ER307,
I find many suppliers of a product carrying a trade name that includes 307, but
the composition is not ER307the product contains no molybdenum, but more
manganese, vs. ER307. The product literature indicates that ER307 is the near-
est equivalent to an American Welding Society (AWS) classification. What is
going on here?
May 2011
It appears to me that the traditional AWS A5.9 ER307 classification has largely disap-
peared from the marketplace. It has an interesting history that links it to the products
you are finding online. The story begins in the armaments buildup leading up to, and
during, World War II, years before the gas metal arc (GMA) welding process was
invented. The welding was done mainly with the shielded metal arc welding (SMAW)
process. The armor of the day was medium carbon (e.g., 0.4% C), low-alloy steel of
quite high hardenability. Welds made with ferritic electrodes had severe hydrogen-
induced cracking problems, so austenitic stainless steel covered electrodes were much
used for armor.
In the United States, armor was initially welded with E310-XX covered electrodes
(25% Cr, 20% Ni). But the Germans experienced nickel shortages more quickly than
the United States did, so that German armor welding with austenitic stainless steel
electrodes tended toward lower nickel content. Ritchie (Ref. 1) reports from studies of
recovered German armor that electrodes of 18% Cr, 8% Ni were used. He doesnt state
this, but it seems clear that high manganese was necessary to obtain austenite stabil-
ity in the diluted weld metal. This was later confirmed by Thielsch (Ref. 2). The short-
age of nickel caused the United States to also tend in this alloy direction, as can be
seen in an AWS Filler Metal Specifications Committee proposal of the time (Ref. 3).
Three austenitic stainless steel electrode compositions were proposed, as shown in
Table 1. AWS later abandoned the nominal composition type designations in favor of
the AISI steel type designations for stainless steel welding electrodes. Of these pro-
posed classifications, the composition limits changed somewhat over time: the 18-8
Mn evolved into 307, the 18-8 Mo evolved into 308Mo, and the 25-20 is the same as
310.
222
Table 1Proposed Stainless Steel Electrode Classifications

for High-Hardenability Steels (1942)

Class
Designation C Mn Cr Ni Mo
18-8 Mn 0.20 max. 2.0 to 5.0 18.0 min. 8.0 min. 1.25 max.
18-8 Mo 0.20 max. 3.0 max. 18.0 min. 8.0 min. 1.0 to 4.0
25-20 0.20 max. 3.0 max. 24.0 min. 19.0 min.
Subsequently, consumable manufacturers succeeded in reducing diffusible hydrogen

in weld metal from ferritic low-alloy steel welding consumables so that the cold crack-
ing problems were mitigated with ferritic electrodes for welding armor, and as a result
demand for austenitic stainless steel welding consumables for welding armor continu-
ally decreased. Consequently, these austenitic stainless steel electrodes for welding
armor have largely disappeared in the United States, except that 310 has other uses.
However, Germany in particular, and Europe in general, has retained the prewar
high-manganese 18-8 composition for welding a host of steels that have severe ten-
dencies to suffer from hydrogen-induced cracking. The GMA wire electrode, which you
are finding on the Internet under trade names that include the 307 designation, is
this high-manganese 18-8 composition, which is currently correctly classified in the
European Standard EN 12072 and in the International Standard ISO 14343 as G 18 8
Mn. Its composition limits are given in Table 2, along with those of the current AWS
A5.9 ER307 classification.
Table 2Composition Limits for G 18 8 Mn vs. ER307

(single value is max., N.S. = Not Specified)
Other,
Class C Mn P S Si Cr Ni Mo Cu total
EN 12072, 0.20 5.0 0.03 0.03 1.2 17.0 7.0 0.3 0.3 N.S.
G 18 8 Mn to to to
8.0 20.0 10.0
ISO 14343, 0.20 5.0 0.03 0.03 1.2 17.0 7.0 0.5 0.5 N.S.
G 18 8 Mn to to to
8.0 20.0 10.0
AWS A5.9, 0.04 3.30 0.03 0.03 0.30 19.5 8.0 0.5 0.75 0.50
ER307 to to to to to to
0.14 4.75 0.65 22.0 10.7 1.5
223
There are two other factors that account for the popularity of this G 18 8 Mn wire elec-
trode in Europe. First, as noted by Folkhard (Ref. 4), this composition is remarkably
resistant to solidification cracking even when dilution from high- carbon ferritic base
metal causes the weld metal to solidify as primary austenite. This makes it very use-
ful not only for welding highly hardenable ferritic steels like armor, but also for a host
of dissimilar metal joints and buffer layers that are commonly made with 309L filler
metal in the USA.
Second, as noted by the present author (Ref. 5), the high manganese of this composi-
tion stabilizes austenite with respect to transformation to martensite at low tempera-
tures. As a result, even with over 30% dilution in joining a carbon steel to a high
hardenability low-alloy steel, no martensite forms in the weld metal which, therefore,
remains ductile and tough.
I suppose that, because the composition and applications of the G 18 8 Mn are so sim-
ilar to those of the original 1942 proposal for an AWS 18-8 Mn electrode while AWS
abandoned this designation in favor of the 307 designation, it made commercial sense
for the Europeans to adopt the trade designations that attach 307 to the G 18 8 Mn
wire electrode in Europe. Without Mo, the G 18 8 Mn is less costly to produce than the
AWS ER307. With higher Mn than AWS ER307, it is more stable as regards transfor-
mation of diluted weld metal to martensite than is ER307, and it has higher resis-
tance to solidification cracking.
The G 18 8 Mn wire electrode is appearing more and more in North America due to its
numerous applications. The AWS A5D Subcommittee members have decided that
after the currently underway revision of AWS A5.9 is published, it will take up the
matter of adoption of ISO 14343 to replace AWS A5.9. If this effort comes to fruition,
then the G 18 8 Mn classification will become an AWS classification.
References
1. Ritchie, S. B. 1943. Welded weapons in war. Welding Journal 22(11): 893901.
2. Thielsch, H. 1952. Stainless steel weld deposits on mild and alloy steels. Welding
Journal 31(1): 37-s to 64-s.
3. AWS Filler Metal Specification Committee. 1942. Proposed specifications for

stainless steel arc welding electrodes for welding steels of high hardenability.
Welding Journal 21(8): 513, 514.
4. Folkhard, E. 1988. Welding Metallurgy of Stainless Steels. Springer-Verlag, New

York, N.Y., p. 167.
5. Kotecki, D. J. 2007. Weld dilution and martensite appearance in dissimilar metal

welding. WRC Bulletin 519, Stainless Steel Weld MetalPrediction of Ferrite
Content, pp. 5975. Welding Research Council, New York, N.Y.
224
5.35 Low Tensile Elongation with E312-16 Weld

Metal?
We prepared an all-weld-metal tensile test specimen from a lot of E312-16
? austenitic stainless steel electrodes in order to qualify the lot. The AWS A5.4
standard (Ref. 1) requires 22% elongation in the tensile test, but we only observed
10%. The ferrite content measured between 55 and 60 FN, which seems normal.
Why should we get such a low elongation result, and what can we do about it?
May 2012
First, let me observe that 312 weld metal, contrary to popular belief and many hand-
books, is not austenitic stainless steel. Metallurgically, 312 weld metal is duplex stain-
less steel. It solidifies as 100% ferrite and only forms austenite during cooling after
solidification, just as do the other duplex stainless steel weld metals like 2209, 2553,
2593, 2594, and 2595, all of which typically produce weld metal of 30 to 60 FN. The
only significant difference between 312 and the other duplex stainless steel weld met-
als is that the other duplex stainless steel weld metals rely almost entirely on nitro-
gen to promote the formation of austenite in the solid state, while 312 relies mainly on
carbon, with some assistance from nitrogen, to promote formation of austenite. Typi-
cally, 312 weld metal contains about 0.10% C and 0.08% N, while the other duplex
stainless steel weld metals typically contain 0.03% C, or less, and 0.15% N or more.
Since 312 is mainly used for joining difficult-to-weld low-alloy steels, the high carbon
content has no effect on corrosion resistance of the joint.
In addition to the carbon and nitrogen mentioned above, 312 typically contains 29%
Cr and 9% Ni. According to the WRC-1992 Diagram, such a composition is predicted
to contain about 55 to 60 FN, just about what you found. So everything about your lot
of electrodes seems to be normal. However, there is another factor to considerdiffus-
ible hydrogen. Diffusible hydrogen has no effect on austenitic stainless steel weld met-
als, but it has a pronounced effect on duplex stainless steel weld metals, similar to,
but not the same as, the effect it has on low-alloy-steel weld metals.
In low-alloy-steel weld metals, diffusible hydrogen can produce delayed cracking, as is

well known. However, less well known is that levels of diffusible hydrogen below that
which will produce delayed cracking in low-alloy-steel weld metal can result in low
tensile elongation, just as you have observed in your 312 weld metal. A common expe-
rience is that, when low-alloy-steel weld metal, such as that from E11018M electrodes,
is rushed from the welding stage, through the machine shop, to the tensile testing
stage, low tensile elongation is observed even if the weld metal is very low in diffusible
hydrogen. Low hydrogen is not zero hydrogen. This diffusible hydrogen will diffuse
out of the low-alloy weld metal in a few days at room temperature, or more quickly at
slightly elevated temperatures. Accordingly, the AWS A5.5 standard (Ref. 2) permits
aging of low-alloy-steel weld metal tensile test specimens at 90 to 105C (200 to
220F) for up to 48 h before tensile testing in order to reveal the weld metals inherent
tensile ductility.
Unlike the situation with low-alloy-steel weld metal, however, aging of the tensile
specimen at room temperature or at slightly elevated temperatures will not allow
225
escape of diffusible hydrogen from duplex stainless steel weld metal within your life-
time. This is because the austenite that first forms during cooling from solidification
temperature invariably forms along the original ferrite grain boundaries. All of the
ferrite is encapsulated within austenite envelopes that are virtually impermeable to
diffusible hydrogen at ambient temperature or even at temperatures well above the
aging temperature permitted by the AWS A5.5 standard. Temperatures high enough
to remove the hydrogen in a reasonable time frame (e.g., 450 to 650C [840 to
1200F]) will embrittle the duplex stainless steel weld metal by formation of alpha
prime and/or sigma phase.
When low-alloy-steel weld metal tensile test specimens fail elongation requirements
due to diffusible hydrogen remnants, the fracture surface often exhibits local brittle
areas commonly called fisheyes. Fisheyes are clear evidence of diffusible hydrogen
damage. Next, I note that many duplex stainless steel weld metals, including 312,
exhibit tensile strengths above 110 ksi (760 MPa), not unlike E11018M weld metal.
And, when the duplex stainless steel weld metal fails with low tensile elongation, it
often exhibits fisheyes. An example of a tensile specimen fracture containing a fisheye
from my own experience with duplex stainless steels (Ref. 3) is shown in Figure 1.
I suspect that your electrodes had picked up enough coating moisture to produce the
hydrogen damage that accounted for your low tensile elongation. Duplex stainless
steel electrodes need to be treated like low-hydrogen electrodes for low-alloy steels.
This means they need to be baked at a high temperature such as 450C (840F) during
manufacture. Then they need to be protected from moisture pickup by storing in
sealed containers or in an oven at elevated temperature (e.g., at 100 to 125C [210 to
260F]) until use. Exposed electrodes need to be rebaked to dry them.
Note: Th is specime n fr actured at 13% e longation. Hyd rogen damag e, o ften ca lled a fishe ye, is
visible as the bright flat area near the top edge of the specimen.
Figure 1Tensile Specimen Fracture Face of 2553-Type Duplex Stainless

Steel Weld Metal Exhibiting Evidence of Hydrogen Damage
226
Follow-up: The inquirer advised that he did indeed find a fisheye on his failed tensile
specimen fracture surface. He then rebaked the exposed electrodes at 350C (660F),
and welded a new test plate. This time the tensile test produced 21% elongation,
slightly less than the 22% elongation requirement of the AWS A5.4 standard, but
much better than the 10% elongation reported for as-exposed electrodes. I advised
him to rebake at a still higher temperature, closer to 450C (840F).
References
1. A5.4/A5.4M:2006, Specification for Stainless Steel Electrodes for Shielded Metal
2. A5.5/A5.5M:2006, Specification for Low-Alloy Steel Electrodes for Shielded Metal
3. Kotecki, D. J. 1989. Heat treatment of duplex stainless steel weld metals. Welding
Journal 68(11): 431-s to 441-s.
5.36 Welding 15-5PH to T1 Steel?

We are trying to qualify a structural weld between 15-5PH stainless steel
? in Condition A (mill annealed) and ASTM A514 Grade F, low-alloy, high-
tensile steel. We tried nickel-based Alloy 625 flux cored arc welding (FCAW)
filler metal (AWS A5.34, Class ENiCrMo3T1-4) with argon-25%CO2 shielding
(AWS A5.32, Class M21-AC-25), but the all-weld-metal yield strength barely
exceeded 70 ksi (490 MPa) while our design called for at least 90 ksi (630 MPa)
yield strength. Furthermore, transverse guided bend tests around a 2-3/4-in.
(70-mm) radius plunger (the large radius was to take into account the expected
modest ductility of the 15-5PH steel) failed at the fusion boundary with the 15-
5PH steel. What can we do to get higher yield strength and pass the bend test?
November 2012
First, the steels with which we are dealing need to be clearly defined. Table 1 lists the
chemical composition ranges of the 15-5PH steel (UNS S15500) as given in ASTM
A693 and of the A514 Grade F steel. I should note that 15-5PH stainless steel is a pre-
cipitation-hardening stainless capable of achieving very high tensile strength after a
hardening treatment at 900F (480C). Copper is the precipitation hardening element.
Hardening at progressively higher temperatures up to 1150F (620C) results in pro-
gressively lower strength as the precipitates become coarser. This steel is most readily
weldable in Condition A. The ASTM A514 steels, including Grade F, are high-strength
structural steels often used in bridges and cranes. It would make little difference if an
A514 grade other than Grade F were used in this joint. These steels are readily weld-
able with low-hydrogen practices.
The specified mechanical properties for 15-5PH in ASTM A693 only address hardness
for Condition A (Rockwell C 38, maximum), but the AK Steel online data sheet for this
steel in Condition A indicates typical tensile strength of 161 ksi (1110 MPa), typical
yield strength of 140 ksi (963 MPa), and typical tensile elongation of about 8%. The
ASTM A514 mechanical property requirements for all grades up to 2-1/2 in. (65 mm)
thickness are 110 to 130 ksi (760 to 895 MPa) tensile strength, 100 ksi (690 MPa) min-
227
Table 1Chemical Composition of 15-5PH and A514 Grade F Steels
Chemical Composition, wt-% (a single value is a maximum)
Steel C Mn P S Si Cr Ni Mo Cu V B Nb
15-5PH 0.07 1.00 0.040 0.030 1.00 14.0 3.5 N.S. 2.5 N.S. N.S. 0.15
to to to to
15.5 5.5 4.5 0.45
A514 0.10 0.60 0.035 0.035 0.15 0.40 0.70 0.40 0.15 0.03 0.0005 N.S.
Grade F to to to to to to to to to
0.20 1.00 0.35 0.65 1.00 0.60 0.50 0.08 0.006
imum yield strength, and 18% elongation. So, it is clear that the approximately 70 ksi
yield strength you observed in the all-weld metal of Alloy 625 is a serious undermatch
for the base metal properties.
Other filler metals can be considered. Low-alloy steel filler metals, in general, are
unsuitable for joining stainless steel to low-alloy steel because dilution causes the
weld metal diluted by the stainless steel side of the joint to reach a composition that
almost invariably transforms to martensite, with high cracking susceptibility and
very low tensile ductility. I note that 15-5PH steel in Condition A has a martensitic
microstructure also, but there is significant tensile ductility in that mill-annealed con-
dition, about 8% elongation as indicated previously.
Nickel-based alloy filler metals other than Alloy 625 might be considered also, but
these all encounter a yield strength deficiency for your application. I know of no
nickel-based alloy filler metal that consistently exceeds 90 ksi (630 MPa) yield
strength without a precipitation-hardening heat treatment. I note that postweld heat
treatment (PWHT) is not recommended for any of the ASTM A514 grades, so I expect
that PWHT is out of the question.
Martensitic grades of stainless steel filler metal, such as 410, 410NiMo, or 630 (17-
4PH) might be considered. But these also encounter the difficulty of a crack-sensitive
and brittle as-welded martensitic zone where diluted with the A514 steel. I dont
think you can find success with these grades of filler metal either, particularly as
regards the transverse bend test.
I think you are most likely to be successful using duplex stainless steel filler metal.
The 22% Cr duplex stainless steel filler metal grade 2209 can handle dilution from the
A514 steel without reaching a crack-sensitive or brittle composition, although my
experience indicates that achieving 90 ksi (630 MPa) yield strength is a marginal
proposition with this filler metal. I think the best choice for achieving your objectives
would be the 25%Cr Grade 2594 filler metal. For flux cored arc welding (FCAW), this
grade is specified in AWS A5.22 as E2594TX-X classifications, where the first X repre-
sents a digit that indicates position of welding and the second X represents a digit
that indicates shielding gas. Table 2 describes the composition requirements for the
2594 composition in AWS A5.22.
228
Table 2AWS A5.22 Class E2594TX-X Composition Requirements
Chemical Composition, wt-% (a single value is a maximum)
C Mn P S Si Cr Ni Mo Cu W N
0.04 0.5 0.04 0.03 1.0 24.0 8.0 2.5 1.5 1.0 0.20
to to to to to
2.5 27.0 10.5 4.5 0.30
AWS A5.22 does not specify yield strength requirements for all-weld metal, but it does
specify minimum tensile strength of 110 ksi (690 MPa) and elongation of 15% mini-
mum for the 2594 composition. My experience indicates this composition will comfort-
ably exceed 90 ksi (630 MPa) yield strength in the all-weld metal. I think this is your
best option for achieving your design requirements.
Follow-up: The enquirer subsequently contacted me to indicate that he had success-
fully qualified an AWS A5.22 Class E2594T1-4 FCAW electrode (all-position, 75%
argon-25% CO2 gas shielding) in the as-welded condition for joining the 15-5PH stain-
less steel to ASTM A514 Grade F structural steel. The all-weld-metal tension test
specimen produced over 125 ksi (860 MPa) tensile strength, over 100 ksi (690 MPa)
yield strength, and over 25% elongation. The transverse guided bend tests of a joint
between 15-5 PH steel in Condition A and A514 Grade F steel, around a 2-3/4-in.
(65-mm) radius plunger, passed also.
5.37 Modifying a 304H Weld Originally Made with

ENiCrFe-3?
Many years ago, we welded a 304H steam line with ENiCrFe-3 electrodes.
? Now we want to replace some connections with new 304H, and it is pro-
posed to weld with E308H-16 electrodes rather than the nickel-alloy electrodes. I
am concerned that there may be places where the new welds are tying into the
old nickel-alloy weld deposits, and this is a potential cracking problem. Others
disagree with me. Is there a problem?
March 2013
There is indeed a potential for solidification cracking if stainless steel weld metal is
deposited on nickel-based alloy, whether the nickel-based alloy is weld metal or base
metal. The origin of the solidification cracking potential is that dilution from the high-
nickel alloy is very likely to cause the newly deposited stainless steel weld metal to
solidify in the primary austenite solidification mode, which is known to be sensitive to
solidification cracking. The likelihood of solidification cracking is increased when nio-
bium (Nb) is present in the nickel-based alloy, as it is in the case of your preexisting
ENiCrFe-3 weld metal.
229
Any weld pass in a joint containing the nickel-based alloy weld metal along one side
can be at risk of solidification cracking if stainless steel filler metal is used for the
joint. Weld passes that are deposited on the nickel alloy deposited metal are most at
risk.
The situation can be examined with the aid of the WRC-1992 Diagram. To begin, we
need the approximate compositions of the various components of a joint. Table 1 lists
typical compositions along with the calculated chromium equivalents, nickel equiva-
lents, and Ferrite Numbers of the WRC-1992 Diagram. In calculating the weld metal
composition, normal SMAW dilution of 30% is estimated, which is comprised half
(15%) from the new 304H and half (15%) from the existing ENiCrFe-3 deposit.
The situation is then plotted on the WRC-1992 Diagram, which has been modified by
expanding the vertical axis to a maximum nickel equivalent of 23Figure 1. This
allows the expected weld metal composition to appear in Figure 1, although the ENi-
CrFe filler metal and the 50:50 mixture of 304H pipe and ENiCrFe-3 cannot appear
on the diagram because their nickel equivalents far exceed the maximum of the modi-
fied diagram. These latter two compositions would appear along the left-most of the
two red tie-lines shown in Figure 1. It is clear that the stainless weld metal, due to the
dilution from nickel-alloy deposit, will solidify as 100% austenite (primary austenite
solidification). This solidification mode is well known to be sensitive to solidification
Table 1Typical Compositions and WRC-1992 Diagram Calculations
Material
50:50
Mixture of First Pass
304H Pipe of
ENiCrFe-3 E308H-16 and E308H-16
Element (%) 304H Pipe Deposit Weld Metal ENiCrFe-3 Weld Metal
C 0.06 0.02 0.06 0.04 0.05
Mn 1.0 7.0 1.0 4.0 1.9
Cr 18.0 15.0 19.0 16.5 18.2
Ni 9.5 70.0 10.2 39.8 19.1
Nb 0.02 1.8 0.02 0.9 0.3
Cu 0.2 0.05 0.2 0.12 0.18
N 0.06 0.01 0.06 0.04 0.05
% f Joint o 15 15 70 30 100
Cr Equivalent 18.2 16.3 19.2 17.2 18.6
Ni Equivalent 12.8 70.9 13.6 41.9 22.0
FN 0.2 0 2 0 0
230
Note: Points corre sponding to the ENiC rFe-3 w eld metal an d the mixture of th at w eld me tal with
304H pip e are ou tside of the di agram be cause of thei r h igh n ickel eq uivalents70.9 an d 41.9,
respectively.
Figure 1WRC-1992 Diagram with Expanded Nickel Equivalent Axis
cracking in stainless steel weld metals, and the presence of about 0.3% Nb, due to
dilution, would make it still more sensitive.
I would suggest two possible courses of action for you to undertake the piping modifi-
cation without concern about solidification cracking. The first way would be to cut away
enough of the existing piping to assure that there is no ENiCrFe-3 weld metal remain-
ing on any joint surface to be welded with the E308H-16 electrodes. The alternative
would be to use ENiCrFe-3 electrodes for the modification. This nickel-based alloy
weld metal composition is well known to be very resistant to solidification cracking.
The analysis above assumed that the old nickel-base alloy weld deposit would make
up only one-half of the fusion boundary of a new stainless steel weld pass. The situa-
tion would be even worse if the old nickel-based alloy weld deposit comprised more
than half of the fusion boundary for any one stainless steel weld pass. In general,
welding over nickel-based alloys with stainless steel filler metals is not a good idea
because the diluted stainless steel weld metal will very likely solidify in the primary
austenite solidification mode.
231
WELDING STAINLESS STEELQUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CHAPTER 6ODDS AND ENDS
Chapter 6
Odds and Ends
6.1 Starting Porosity with Coated Stainless?

How can I avoid starting porosity with my stainless electrodes?
?
July 1999
Starting porosity with stainless steel covered electrodes, especially the EXXX-17 coat-
ing type, usually results from the electrode coating having picked up moisture due to
atmospheric exposure. This happens, for example, when a sealed can of electrodes is
opened and the electrodes are unprotected from humid air, especially during the sum-
mer months. In the future, when the electrode can is opened, immediately put the
cover back on the can. Most stainless steel electrodes are sold in pop-top cans, with a
resealable plastic lid. If the lid is put back on the can, the electrodes should remain
indefinitely in good condition.
If you do not want to reseal the electrodes in the original can, or if the original can
cannot be resealed, treating the electrodes as if they were low-hydrogen electrodes for
high-strength steels is effective. This means storing the electrodes in a heated oven
after the can is opened. A storage temperature of about 225 to 250F (107 to 121C)
should be suitable. This temperature range will protect electrodes from moisture
pickup, but it will not redry exposed electrodes.
Redrying of exposed electrodes requires higher temperatures, which depend upon the
coating type. Typically, exposed electrodes of the EXXX-15 classifications require
approximately 450F (230C) to eliminate starting porosity. Exposed electrodes of the
EXXX-16, EXXX-17, and EXXX-26 classifications may require 650F (340C) to elimi-
nate starting porosity. About 30 min at temperature is usually sufficient. Excessive
redrying temperature will cause the coating to flake off. Electrodes with a flaking
coating should be discarded.
Finally, a quick fix, when a redrying oven is not available, is to short circuit the elec-
trode between the electrode holder and a piece of scrap plate connected to the ground
clamp of the power source when the power source is energized for welding. This can be
done by touching the electrode to the plate in a way designed not to strike an arc but
to cause the electrode to stick fast. Steady the electrode holder so that the electrode
233
CHAPTER 6ODDS AND ENDS WELDING STAINLESS STEELQUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
remains stuck fast and let the electrode heat up by its electrical resistance for about
10 to 30 s, then wiggle it loose from the plate or shut off the power source. With a little
practice, this can be done consistently without causing the coating to chip off at the
start end. An excessively heated electrode will bend when you try to wiggle it loose,
causing the coating to spall; such electrodes should be scrapped. Be careful not to grab
the hot electrode with an unprotected hand.
6.2 Root Side Cleaning of StainlessASTM A380?

When I complete a weld in stainless, for example, in 304L or 316L, I find
? heat tint colors on the weld and heat-affected zone surfaces. Im told this is
harmful to corrosion resistance. Is that correct? And, if so, what is the best way
to get rid of it?
August 1999
The heat tint to which you refer is actually an oxide layer that is high in chromium.
It may have a straw yellow, deep golden, rose, blue or gray tone, depending upon the
thickness of the oxide. Whether or not it is harmful depends upon the service environ-
ment. For some mildly corrosive environments, it is not harmful and can be left in
place. However, in environments involving chlorides, or in water systems that are not
sterile, preferential local corrosion (pitting, in particular) tends to occur in heat-tinted
areas.
Heat tint occurs when the metal is heated in the presence of oxygen. One way to elim-
inate heat tint is to make oxygen unavailable while the metal is hot. This is the func-
tion of root side purging in welding tubing, pipe or containers. The air is replaced by
argon or, sometimes, by nitrogen. Purging is usually only used for protecting the root
side because it is often impractical to purge the outside of a weldment. Welding inside
a purged glovebox can accomplish this, however.
Assuming you already have the heat tint, then you may want to remove it. Several
methods of removing oxides from stainless steels are described in ASTM A380, which
is found in Vol. 01.03 of the ASTM Standards. Mechanical removal of oxides includes
wire brushing, grinding, sanding and grit blasting. It is essential in applying mechan-
ical cleaning that all iron contamination be avoided. Iron particles become embedded
in the stainless steel surface, and they rust. The rust then promotes rusting or corro-
sion of the stainless. So, avoiding iron contamination means using a wire brush made
of stainless steel bristles that has never been used for brushing carbon steel or low-
alloy steel. Any abrasive should have never been used on carbon steel or low-alloy
steel. Also, all of these mechanical methods produce a thin (or not so thin) layer of dis-
turbed metal on the surface, which can also be subject to preferential attack in corro-
sive media. With a disturbed metal layer, the surface may look cleaner than the heat-
tinted surface, but its corrosion resistance may be no better, and may even be poorer.
From the viewpoint of corrosion resistance, the safer and better methods of removing
oxides from stainless steel weldments are acid pickling and electropolishing. Both of
234
these methods use an aggressive environment to dissolve a thin layer of the stainless
steel under the oxides, thereby removing the oxides without leaving a layer of dis-
turbed metal. Acid pickling is often done by immersing the weldment in a solution of
15 to 25% nitric acid and 1 to 8% hydrofluoric acid in water, for 5 to 30 min. The
strength needed for the solution depends upon the alloy being cleaned. Local pickling
can be accomplished by painting the area to be cleaned with a paste that contains
nitric and hydrofluoric acids. There are a number of suppliers for commercial pickle
pastes. Acid pickling must be followed by thorough rinsing with clean water, as resid-
ual chemicals can cause continuing attack of the stainless.
Electropolishing is not addressed in ASTM A380. It is described in the ASM Metals
Handbook, 9th ed., Volume 5. Briefly, electropolishing involves immersing the weld-
ment in a bath of sulfuric and/or phosphoric acid while it is the anode (positive termi-
nal) in a DC circuit. The cathode (negative terminal) is usually copper, also immersed
in the bath. Again, a thorough rinse is necessary. In contrast to acid pickling, which
leaves somewhat of a matte finish, properly done electropolishing leaves a mirror fin-
ish. Electropolishing and acid pickling result in the highest corrosion resistance
attainable for the weldment.
Obviously, the solutions used in pickling and electropolishing are hazardous to
humans and the environment. They contain dissolved chromium and nickel. They
need to be handled with appropriate precautions, and they need to be disposed of in
an environmentally acceptable manner. The rinse water may also present a disposal
problem. Contractors are available that specialize in these methods of stainless steel
oxide removal or in the disposal of spent chemical baths.
6.3 Gas Tracks with Flux Cored Stainless?

Once in a while, I get small tunnel-like markings along the weld surface
? when using flux cored stainless with 75% argon-25% CO2 shielding gas.
Sometimes the tunnels come from the edges of the bead toward the center, and
sometimes they run along the centerline. Occasionally, a tunnel will actually
bend downward into the weld metal. At first I thought I had received defective
wire from the manufacturer. I changed manufacturers, and the problem went
away, but only for a little while. What is the cause of these tunnels, and what can
I do to avoid them? I really like the flux cored stainless for ease of use and weld
appearance, and I dont want to abandon it.
August 2000
The cause of the tunnels (often called gas tracks or worm tracks) is hydrogen gas
being rejected from solution in the liquid metal at the metal-slag interface. Most com-
monly, the hydrogen gas gets into the weld pool because the wire has been exposed to
humid air and has absorbed moisture. The water molecules are broken apart in the
arc, liberating hydrogen, which dissolves in the weld pool.
The usual experience is that the worm tracks appear when welding after the wire has
been left on the fire feeder overnight when the weather is humid. One solution, then,
235
is to remove the wire from the wire feeder overnight and store the wire in its package,
in a plastic bag or in some container to prevent exposure to the humid air. Normally,
flux cored stainless wires are supplied on plastic spools, so baking to drive off the
absorbed moisture is not an option. If the wire is supplied on metal spools, baking may
be an option, but baking temperatures may need to be as high as 500 to 600F (260 to
315C), which also may destroy the wire feeding lubricant applied by the manufac-
turer. If the feeding lubricant is destroyed, you may trade worm tracks for feeding
problems. So protection of the wire is a better option.
Two other methods can reduce or eliminate the worm tracks. One is to change from
75% argon-25% CO2 gas shielding to pure CO2 gas shielding. The higher oxygen con-
tent of the arc environment caused by the higher CO2 atmosphere seems to remove
some hydrogen from the weld pool. Experience proves pure CO2 provides more resis-
tance to worm tracks than does an argon-CO2 blend. Another thing you can do is
increase the contact-tip-to-work distance (electrode extension). This results in more
preheating of the wire before it reaches the arc, which drives off the absorbed mois-
ture before it reaches the arc. Recessing the contact tip about 1/4 in. (6 mm) behind
the end of the shielding gas cup will often eliminate worm tracks as compared to weld-
ing with the contact tip flush with the end of the gas cup. Then the visible electrode
extension is the same, and the gas coverage remains intact. The only drawback is that
the wire may wander more with the longer electrode extension.
6.4 Getting Rid of Silicon Islands on GMA Welds?

Im using ER316LSi wire for joining 316L stainless steel in spray mode
? GMAW with 98% argon-2% oxygen shielding. Im getting a few scattered
silicon islands on the weld surface. These are very adherent and unattractive, so
I would like to eliminate them. Since the ER316LSi wire is high in silicon, would
a change to ER316L, with lower silicon, get rid of the silicon islands?
August 2000
In a word, no. First of all, what you refer to as silicon islands are not really silicon
islands but islands of slag composed of oxides of manganese, silicon and chromium. It
is the oxygen, not the silicon, that is responsible for the slag islands. Reducing the sil-
icon content from the 0.651.00% range of the ER316LSi to the 0.300.65% range of
the ER316L will only change the ratio of silicon to manganese and chromium in the
slag islands. The amount of slag will be essentially unchanged.
The only way to reduce the amount of slag is to reduce the amount of available oxy-
gen. But there is a limit to what is practical. If you eliminate all of the oxygen, by
using pure argon, I think you will find the wetting is unacceptable and the arc tends
to wander, which results in unacceptably ugly beads. The practical minimum oxygen
is around 1%. Shielding gas of 99% argon-1% oxygen is a commonly available blend.
This will produce wetting almost as good as with 98% argon-2% oxygen. The slag
islands will be reduced, but not totally eliminated.
236
6.5 What is the Difference Between a -16 and a -17

Coating?
For numerous years, I have purchased stainless steel covered electrodes
? classified as E308L-16. In the last few years, the electrodes, with the same
trade designation, have now become classified as E308L-17. The electrode manu-
facturer assures me the electrodes are unchanged, but this classification change
makes me nervous. Can you explain this classification change?
November 2000
The AWS standard for classifying stainless steel covered electrodes is A5.4. The most
recent version, published in 1992, is the one that introduced the -17 coating type. This
is a coating type suitable for all-position welding using either AC or DC current. While
the previous version of AWS A5.4, published in 1981, did not contain the -17 coating
type, it did contain the -16 coating type, which is also suitable for all-position welding
using either AC or DC current. At first glance, these requirements appear to be identi-
cal, so you may wonder why the AWS Filler Metal Committee introduced the -17 coat-
ing type in 1992.
Prior to the 1981 publication of AWS A5.4, there was a single more-or-less standard
way in the United States of making stainless steel electrode coatings for AC and DC
welding. The coating formulations were very high in the mineral rutile, which is
essentially titanium dioxide. The slag of these electrodes freezes quite fast, so welding
in the uphill position is rather easily accomplished with a narrow weave technique.
But about the time of this publication, a different form of a coating, suitable for AC or
DC welding, began to become popular with welders in the United States. This coating
substituted silica for some of the rutile. The resulting welding operation tended to
include a smoother arc action, with less spatter and a more attractive weld surface
appearance, than was normally obtained with the classic U.S. -16 coating type. These
electrodes originated from Europe, so they came to be called European-style AC-DC
electrodes. Since these electrodes welded both AC and DC, and since the AWS A5.4
standard at that time only contained two coating types (-15 for DC only, and -16 for
AC and DC), the European suppliers used the -16 identification for them. They
became very popular in the United States, so, of course, they were copied by the U.S.
electrode manufacturers. But they were, and are, truly different from the classic U.S.
-16 coated electrodes. In particular, while these European-style electrodes can be used
in all welding positions, they generally require a wider weave in the uphill position to
make an acceptably flat fillet weld. The testing for classification of a stainless steel
covered electrode, as a -16 coating type, includes producing uphill fillet welds with a
maximum allowable fillet size and a maximum allowable convexity. It proved to be dif-
ficult to meet these requirements consistently with the European-style -16 coating, so
the 1992 revision of AWS A5.4 introduced the -17 coating type, with a wider allowable
uphill weave in the fillet weld test than for the -16 coating type, to more properly
describe these electrodes.
The 1992 publication of AWS A5.4 did not put the matter to rest. No manufacturer of
electrodes, so far as I know, started using the -17 coating designation until the change
was incorporated into the ASME Code as SFA5.4, which did not happen until the 1994
237
Winter Addenda to the Code. Even then, there were further delays, as electrode man-
ufacturers had money invested in warehouse stocks that were already imprinted and
labeled with the -16 designation. The manufacturers also had trade literature, price
books and advertising that included the -16 coating designation. So it took some time
for U.S. manufacturers to work through these factors and make the switch to the
more accurate -17 coating designation. In addition, some manufacturers have not
made the switch, despite their electrode coatings using formulations that include the
silica substitution for some rutile. This may be due in part to concerns such as the one
you expressed. It may also be due in part to the fact the Canadian W48.2 standard for
stainless steel covered electrodes, which largely mirrors the AWS A5.4 standard, has
never accepted the -17 coating type, and this somewhat complicates marketing of
these electrodes in North America. So you cant always be sure, from the classifica-
tion, that the electrode you buy with a -16 coating type designation really has a -16
coating.
There is a pretty easy way to detect if a particular electrode, designated by the manu-
facturer as having a -16 coating type, is really a -17 coating in disguise. Look at the
weld metal silicon content, either by your own analysis or by the electrode manufac-
turers certified analysis. Most stainless steel electrode manufacturers will provide a
Certified Material Test Report (CMTR), for a given lot of electrodes, on request. A real
-16 coating type will produce typically 0.5% Si in the deposit, or less. But the silica in
a real -17 coating type will cause silicon pickup by the weld metal, so that the deposit
silicon will typically be 0.6%, or more.
Due to this silicon pickup, and the known tendency to increased hot cracking difficul-
ties in ferrite-free stainless steel weld metal with higher silicon, fully austenitic com-
positions are not generally made with the -17 coating type. (See the Stainless Q&A
column in the February 2000 Welding Journal.) But the common ferrite-bearing
alloys, such as 308, 308L, 308H, 309, 309L, 316, 316L and 347, are perfectly accept-
able with either coating type. Please note there is nothing inherently inferior about a
-17 coating type as compared to a -16 coating type, for ferrite-bearing compositions,
but they are really different. The -17 coating type tends to be more welder-friendly for
flat position welding. The -16 coating type tends to be more welder-friendly for uphill
or all-position welding. Take your pick.
6.6 What is the Black Soot Beside GMA and GTA

Welds in Stainless?
When making a gas metal arc weld in 304L stainless with ER308LSi filler
? metal, using 98% argon-2% oxygen shielding gas, I find a deposit that
looks like soot on the base metal for a distance of about 1/8 in. from the weld
edges. This soot brushes off easily, but I dont like having to do that. What is
causing the soot to form, and what can be done to prevent it?
January 2001
The first part of your question is easy to answer. Ive used a scanning electron micro-
scope to semiquantitatively analyze the soot. It turns out to be oxides of iron, chro-
238
mium, silicon, nickel, and manganese. What happens is that the arc is hot enough to
cause vaporization of some portion of all of the metal species in the filler wire. Then
the metal vapors oxidize and condense on the cooler surroundings. Some of the con-
densed vapors are carried away by the airthese are the welding fumes. And some of
the vapors condense on the base metal near the weldthese are the soot you
observe. The concentration of the elements in this condensed soot, and in the air-
borne fumes, depends on more than the concentration of each element in the wire. It
also depends upon the boiling point or vapor pressure of each element. Manganese, in
particular, is present in these oxides in greater percentage than in the filler metal
because of its lower boiling temperature or higher vapor pressure. The Handbook of
Chemistry and Physics lists boiling points for the various elements found in
ER308LSi, as seen in Table 1.
The much lower boiling point of manganese, as compared to the boiling points of all
other elements present, accounts for the concentration of Mn in welding fume (and in
the soot), which tends to be approximately double (or more) the concentration of Mn
in the filler metal. See Fumes and Gases in the Welding Environment, published by
AWS.
As for the second part of your questionpreventing the soot from formingI dont
think you can in GMA welding. You can lessen it by doing the same things that you
can do to lessen fume, for example, use less oxidizing gas (99% argon-1% oxygen, for
example) and keep the arc voltage as low as possible. Or, if possible, change to sub-
merged arc welding, which totally eliminates the soot.
Table 1Boiling Points of Alloy Elements in ER308L Si
Element Mn Si Cr Ni Fe
Boiling Temperature, 1962 2355 2672 2732 2750

C (F) (3564) (4271) (4842) (4950) (4982)
6.7 Eccentric Penetration in Orbital GTAW When

Low S Heat is Joined to High S Heat?
We are welding machined type 304L stainless end plugs to type 304L
? stainless tubing approximately 10 mm in diameter and 0.5-mm wall thick-
ness, using pure argon in a chamber and orbital autogenous gas tungsten arc
welding (GTAW). There is a machined shoulder on the end plug, so it fits both
inside the tube and against its end, with matching outer diameter measure-
ments. When the sulfur contents of the two parts are different, the arc pulls
strongly toward the low-S component, making it difficult to meet penetration
requirements. We cant increase heat input enough to make the difference with-
out violating qualification limits. Whats causing this, and is there anything
besides screening heats that will help?
July 2001
239
The problem, which you have correctly identified as related to sulfur content, is due to
surface tension gradients, the Marangoni Effect. The effect was explained in part by
C. R. Heiple and J. R. Roper in 1982 (Mechanism for Minor Element Effect on GTA
Fusion Zone Geometry, Welding Journal 61(4): 97-s to 102-s). This work showed that,
when the sulfur content is normal (i.e., greater than 0.005%), the surface tension of
the weld pool increases with increasing temperature. This causes the hottest metal
along the surface of the weld pool to be drawn toward the pool center, where it has
nowhere to go but downward. This downward flow of hottest metal in the pool center
causes deep, narrow penetration patterns. When the sulfur content is lower, there is a
reversalthe surface tension decreases with increasing temperature, causing the hot-
test metal along the weld pool surface to be drawn outward toward the cooler pool
edges. Then the result is a wide but shallow penetration pattern.
The Heiple and Roper work doesnt exactly address the situation of welding a low-sul-
fur stainless to a high-sulfur stainless. That work was followed by M. J. Tinkler and
coworkers in 1983 (Welding 304L stainless steel tubing having variable penetration
characteristics, Paper 29, International ConferenceThe Effects of Residual, Impu-
rity and Micro-Alloying Elements on Weldability and Weld Properties, London,
England, November 1517, 1983, The Welding Institute). Tinkler, et al., showed when
a high-sulfur stainless is welded to a low-sulfur stainless, the surface tension gradient
on the high-sulfur side starts a flow of the hottest metal toward the pool center. But
there is no offsetting flow toward the center from the low-sulfur side. As a result, the
hottest metal overshoots the pool center before it starts a downward flow. This causes
eccentric penetration, with the deepest penetration on the low-sulfur side. This effect
is what you observe when the arc pulls strongly toward the low-S component.
Tinkler, et al., found a solution to eccentric penetration in the form of copper heat
sinks very close to the weld to constrict the pool. This approach would probably
require establishing a new welding procedure because use of heat sinks is likely to
require higher current for complete penetration. They also found that GTA welding
over the original weld a second time improved the penetration pattern because the
sulfur was then more homogeneously distributed. A third possible solution to your
problem would be the application of newly developed fluxes for enhancing penetration
in GTAW. These were described by Paskell, et al., in 1997 (GTAW Flux Increases
Weld Joint Penetration, Welding Journal 76(4): 57 to 62). You might find the cleanup
after welding to be objectionable, however.
6.8 Nitrogen Purging and Chromium Nitride

Formation in Stainless Welding?
We are in the midst of a heated debate over the use of nitrogen as a purge
? gas for welding 316L stainless steel using gas metal arc welding (GMAW)
processes. We hear, Yes, nitrogen is an inert gas from one source, and No,
nitrogen isnt inert; it forms chromium nitrides and makes the weld brittle and
reduces weld metal ferrite, resulting in weld cracking, from another. What is
the correct answer? Can nitrogen be used as a purge gas?
August 2001
240
Nitrogen is not an inert gas. The only inert gases are helium, neon, argon, krypton,
xenon and radon. Of these, only helium and argon are used in welding to any appre-
ciable extent. Any other gas can react with the weld metal. In the July 2000 issue of
the Welding Journal, I pointed out in this column that for nitrogen to enter the weld
pool to any appreciable extent, it is necessary for it to get into the arc and be dissoci-
ated from N2 molecules into atomic or ionic form. If nitrogen is on the underside of the
weld pool only, there is virtually no nitrogen pickup by the weld metal. So, a closed
root joint works well, and an open root joint is risky.
The main risk of nitrogen purging is that nitrogen will be picked up by the weld metal
and, with 316L or similar ferrite-containing weld metal, the nitrogen can then reduce
ferrite content to near zero. If ferrite is reduced to near zero, hot cracking can (but not
necessarily) result. Sound welds in fully austenitic stainless steels can be made suc-
cessfully, especially with care to produce convex beads and fill craters.
The portion of this question not addressed in the July 2000 column regards the forma-
tion of chromium nitrides and possible weld embrittlement. The possibility of chro-
mium nitride formation, if nitrogen enters the weld metal, depends upon the specific
stainless steel-alloy type. Chromium nitrides form when the solubility of nitrogen in
the metal is exceeded as the alloy cools from welding temperatures. Nitrogen is rea-
sonably soluble in austenitic stainless steels, such as 316L, so chromium nitrides
wont form, and there is no embrittlement. However, the solubility of nitrogen in fer-
rite drops to near zero as ferrite cools from welding temperatures. There is no problem
if both ferrite and austenite are present since the nitrogen simply diffuses from the
cooling ferrite into the austenite. This is the case especially in duplex stainless steels,
and in these steels, nitrogen is a desirable alloy element. Again, no chromium nitrides
can form, and there is no embrittlement.
However, if the stainless steel weld metal is fully ferritic, or nearly fully ferritic, then
nitrogen cant diffuse to austenite, and chromium nitrides will form during cooling
from welding temperatures. Ferritic stainless steel welds can be embrittled by chro-
mium nitride formation. Furthermore, chromium nitride formation produces chro-
mium-depleted zones beside the nitrides. Preferential corrosion can occur in the
chromium-depleted zones.
Even in ferritic stainless steels, chromium nitride formation is not always harmful.
The harmfulness of chromium nitrides is dependant on what is expected of the ferritic
stainless steel. Ferritic stainless steels can be subdivided into three categories, or gen-
erations. The oldest, or first generation, ferritic stainless steels contain an appreciable
amount of free carbon at high temperatures. Some austenite forms in them during
welding. These steels, such as 430 and 446, form chromium carbides as well as chro-
mium nitrides during welding. Therefore, it makes little or no difference if nitrogen
pickup occurs during welding, unless porosity results. First generation ferritic stain-
lesses require a postweld heat treatment (PWHT) to make them reasonably ductile
and corrosion resistant after welding.
Second generation ferritic stainlesses are lower in carbon and contain stabilizing ele-
ments such as titanium or aluminum. The stabilizers form nitrides instead of allowing
chromium nitride to form. These steels, such as 405 and 409, are also little affected by
nitrogen pickup.
It is the third generation of ferritic stainless steels that is seriously damaged by nitro-
gen pickup. These steels are very low in carbon and nitrogen content, very high in
241
chromium content and often contain considerable molybdenum. In contrast to the

rather modest corrosion resistance expectations of the first two generations of ferritic
stainless steels, expectations for the third generation are very high. In particular,
these steels, such as 18Cr-2Mo (a.k.a. type 444), 29-4, and 29-4-2, are expected to pro-
vide high resistance to chloride stress corrosion cracking, which plagues austenitic
stainless steels such as 316L. I do not recommend nitrogen purging of third genera-
tion ferritic stainless steels under any circumstances. It takes very little nitrogen
pickup to do severe damage to both mechanical properties (ductility and toughness)
and corrosion resistance. It is not necessary to form chromium nitrides to damage
these steelsnitrogen in solution is very damaging to ductility and toughness.
To clarify the three generations of ferritic stainless steels, Table 1 lists the chemical
composition of a few examples from each generation. Because these steels are com-
monly produced as thin-wall tubing, the composition limits are taken from ASTM
A268, Standard Specification for Seamless and Welded Ferritic and Martensitic Stain-
less Steel Tubing for General Service.
Table 1Ferritic Stainless Steel Compositions
First Generation Second Generation Third Generation
Grade TP430 TP446-1 TP405 TP409 18Cr-2Mo 29-4 29-4-2

UNS S43000 S44600 S40500 S40900 S44400 S44700 S44800
%C 0.12 0.20 0.08 0.08 0.025 0.010 0.010

max. max. max. max. max. max. max.
% Mn 1.00 1.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.30 0.30
% Si 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.20 0.20
% Cr 16.0 to 23.0 to 11.5 to 10.50 to 17.5 to 28.0 to 28.0 to
18.0 30.0 13.5 11.75 19.5 30.0 30.0
% Ni 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 1.00 0.15 2.0 to
max. max. max. max. max. max. 2.5
% Mo N.S.(a) N.S.(a) N.S.(a) N.S.(a) 1.75 to 3.5 to 3.5 to
2.50 4.2 4.2
% Al N.S.(a) N.S.(a) 0.10 to N.S.(a) N.S.(a) N.S.(a) N.S.(a)
0.30
% Ti N.S.(a) N.S.(a) N.S.(a) 6 %C Ti + Nb = N.S.(a) N.S.(a)
to 0.75 0.20 +
% Nb N.S.(a) N.S.(a) N.S.(a) N.S.(a) 4 (C + N) N.S.(a) N.S.(a)
to 0.80
%N N.S.(a) 0.10 to N.S.(a) N.S.(a) 0.035 0.020 0.020
0.25 max. max.(b) max.(b)
(a) N.S. = Not Specified.
(b) (C + N) = 0.025 max.
242
There are also martensitic stainless steels and precipitation hardening stainless
steels. In these, nitrogen is interchangeable with carbon, and these steels generally
contain enough carbon that a little nitrogen pickup wont be noticed. However, a lot of
nitrogen pickup (e.g., 1500 to 2000 parts per million) can cause austenite to be
retained at room temperature in a nominally martensitic precipitation hardening
stainless steel such as 17-4 PH. Retained austenite can cause weld metal to not
develop the full hardness and strength of which it is capable. Therefore, there is a risk
of unsatisfactory results with nitrogen purging of such a martensitic precipitation
hardening stainless steel.
In summary, the only stainless steels I would not recommend nitrogen purging for are
third generation ferritic stainless steelsthose ferritic stainless steels characterized
by very low carbon and nitrogen limits. With reasonable care to keep nitrogen out of
the arc, other stainless steels can be welded with nitrogen purging. And, in the case of
duplex stainless steels, it is not necessary to keep the nitrogen out of the arc, so long
as porosity does not result.
6.9 Welding 17-7PH?

We have been asked to quote a job that will involve welding of 17-7PH
? stainless. We have welded a lot of 304L and 316L stainless, but never any-
thing like this. How different is welding 17-7PH stainless from 304L?
January 2004
First of all, 17-7PH stainless has other names as well. It falls under the UNS Number
S17700 and is also referred to as Type 661 in the ASTM standards that govern it,
including A313 (spring wire), A564 (bar, wire, and shapes), and A693 (plate, sheet,
and strip). There are trivial differences among the composition limits in these three
standards. Table 1 reproduces the composition limits from ASTM A693, which is the
most likely standard that would be used for base metals to be welded.
Type 17-7PH belongs to the subfamily of precipitation-hardening stainless steels com-

monly known as the semiaustenitic PH stainless steels. The subfamily is so named
because its members can exist, at room temperature, either as nonmagnetic, soft aus-
tenite, or as magnetic, hard martensite. The alloy is austenitic upon quenching from
1950F (1065C) to ambient temperature (Condition A). This is the condition in which
the alloy is normally supplied by the steel mill. It is then moderately soft, 55 ksi
Table 1Composition Limits for ASTM A693 Type 631 (17-7PH) Stainless
C, % Mn, % P, % S, % Si, % Cr, % Ni, % Al, %
0.09 1.00 0.040 0.030 1.00 16.00 to 6.50 to 0.75 to

max. max. max. max. max. 18.00 7.75 1.50
243
(380 MPa) maximum yield strength, 150 ksi (1035 MPa) maximum tensile strength,
and 92 Rockwell B maximum hardness, in thicknesses over 0.010 in. (0.25 mm) to
4 in. (102 mm) and ductile (20% elongation, minimum). It can be cold formed,
although cold forming will induce partial martensite transformation.
The alloy in strip or sheet form can also be supplied by the mill in the cold-rolled
condition. In this condition, it is much harder and strongerRockwell C 41, 175 ksi
(1205 MPa) yield strength, 200 ksi (1380 MPa) tensile strength, all specified minimum
values by ASTM A693. Then the alloy has become largely martensite, with only 1%
minimum elongation, so it is not as readily weldable. This is known as Condition C.
But that is not nearly the end of the story. The approximately 1% aluminum in the
composition permits an aging reaction, in which Ni3Al is precipitated, to further
harden the alloy. In the cold-rolled condition, the alloy can be aged at 900F (480C)
for 90 minutes to achieve 46 Rockwell C minimum hardness, 230 ksi (1585 MPa) min-
imum yield strength, 240 ksi (1655 MPa) minimum tensile strength, and 46 Rockwell
C minimum hardness, with 1% minimum elongation. This is another condition in
which the alloy can be obtained from the steel mill. It is known as Condition CH 900.
For optimum weldability, 17-7PH should be in the mill-annealed Condition A. Preheat
is unnecessary since an autogenous GTA weld will also be austenite in the as-welded
condition. Filler metal of matching 17-7PH composition is not classified by AWS A5.9,
although wire for GMA or GTA welding can be purchased to the AMS 5824 specifica-
tion. As this filler metal wire is expensive and difficult to locate, base metal in strip or
sheet form can be sheared into pieces suitable for manual GTA welding. Recovery of
the aluminum alloying is normally not very good with flux shielded processes, so
SMAW and SAW are not recommended with 17-7PH filler metal. The composition
range of the AMS 5824 wire is slightly more restrictive than that of the 17-7PH base
metal, as can be seen in Table 2.
If a flux shielded process is necessary, an alternative is to use 17-4PH filler metal,
classified as E630-XX covered electrodes in AWS A5.4 or as ER630 rod or wire in AWS
A5.9. Type 630 develops its additional hardening, after martensite formation, from a
copper-rich phase, and copper is readily transferred across the arc in flux shielded
Table 2Composition Ranges of AMS 5824 and Type 630 Filler Metals
Filler % % %
Metal %C Mn %P %S % Si % Cr % Ni % Al Nb Cu
AMS 5824 0.09 1.00 0.025 0.025 0.50 16.00 6.50 0.75
max. max. max. max. max. to to to
17.25 7.75 1.25
E630-XX 0.05 0.25 0.04 0.03 0.75 16.00 4.5 0.15 3.25
max. to max. max. max. to to to to
0.75 16.75 5.0 0.30 4.00
ER630 0.05 0.25 0.03 0.03 0.75 16.0 4.5 0.15 3.25
max. to max. max. max. to to to to
0.75 16.75 5.0 0.30 4.00
244
processes. Because Type 630 is a martensitic precipitation hardening composition, the

weld metal will be martensitic as deposited, so a preheat of 250F (120C) minimum is
appropriate to avoid cold cracking. This composition solidifies as primary ferrite, as
does the 17-7PH composition, so hot cracking is unlikely. Type 630 filler metal, after
the complete aging treatment, most likely will fall somewhat short of the strength of
the 17-7PH base metal. The Type 630 filler metal composition ranges are included in
Table 2 for comparison with the AMS 5824 composition range.
Normally, 17-7PH stainless would not be chosen for a weldment unless aging was
expected after welding, to develop high strength. Welding on Condition C or Condition
CH 900 material would result in a soft austenitic heat-affected zone and, if the filler
metal were of matching composition, of a soft austenitic weld fusion zone. So, in any
event, the weldment would have to be aged to get weld properties approaching those
of the base metal. Accordingly, it is by far most common to purchase the base metal for
a weldment in Condition A and perform heat treatment after welding. To produce the
highest strength in matching welds, a full postweld heat treatment, consisting of solu-
tion annealing, austenite conditioning, transformation to martensite, and precipita-
tion, is necessary.
The first heat treatment step is the solution anneal at 1950F (1065C) and quenching
to ambient temperature. Austenite conditioning is then conducted by reheating to
1750F (955C) for 10 minutes. This is followed by chilling to 100F (73C) and hold-
ing for eight hours to complete martensite formation. Lastly, the alloy is aged at 950F
(510C) for 90 minutes to precipitate the Ni3Al. The resulting strength is not quite as
high as in Condition CH 900; this is termed Condition RH 950.
An alternative postweld heat treatment, which is a bit simpler but doesnt produce
quite as much strength, is to follow the same solution anneal but with austenite condi-
tioning at 1400F (760C) for 90 minutes, cooling to just below room temperature
(55F [13C]), then aging at 1050F (565C) for 90 minutes and air cooling to room
temperature. This is termed Condition TH 1050.
Mechanical property requirements in ASTM A693 vary slightly, depending upon
thickness. Table 3 indicates requirements that would apply to 1/8-in. (3-mm)-thick 17-
7PH for Condition RH 950 and Condition CH 1050. The heat treatments will not be
detrimental to Type 630 weld metal, if that is chosen. AWS A5.9 does not consider
Table 3Minimum Mechanical Property

Requirements for 17-7PH Steel after Aging
Tensile Strength Yield Strength Rockwell C
Alloy Condition ksi MPa ksi MPa % Elongation Hardness
17-7PH RH950 210 1450 190 1310 4 44
TH1050 180 1240 150 1035 6 38
17-4PH 950 age 165 1140 155 1070 5 38
1050 age 150 1035 135 930 5 33
245
mechanical properties, while AWS A5.4 contains requirements only for 1150F
(565C) final aging treatment. Those requirements are almost identical to the 17-4PH
base metal requirements for that aging temperature in ASTM A693. The other aging
temperatures given for 17-4PH in ASTM A693 are not quite the same as for 17-7PH,
so a bit of interpolation is necessary to provide expected minimum mechanical proper-
ties for the solution annealed and aged 17-4PH (E630-XX), included in Table 3.
While 630 filler metal can be used for 17-7PH stainless, it appears you would have to
accept some undermatch of the properties of that weld metal with those of the base
metal. If you use the matching 17-7PH filler metal, then you can expect welding itself
to be very similar to that for 304L or 316L, but the rather complicated postweld heat
treatment is radically different from anything that would be done with 304L or 316L.
Normally, those latter alloys are not given any postweld heat treatment.
6.10 Dual Classification of Filler Metals?

Our quality assurance department has noticed a shipment of stainless
?steel filler metals that seems to have two classifications on themE308-16
and E308L-16. What is that all about? I ordered E308L-16. Is there something
substandard about these electrodes?
November 2004
Perhaps your quality assurance department didnt notice this before. Perhaps you just
changed suppliers, or perhaps your supplier is following the trend for dual classifica-
tion of stainless steel filler metals.
First, I should note that dual classification according to coating type is not allowed per
AWS A5.4, Specification for Stainless Steel Electrodes for Shielded Metal Arc Welding.
It is not allowed to classify a given electrode as both E308L-16 and E308L-17. The
electrode can only be classified as one or the other coating type. But dual classification
by composition is allowed if the electrode meets all of the classification requirements
for two compositions. In practice, dual classification only works for carbon limits.
Actually, there are only benefits in dual classification, and there is no downside. Let
me explain, by way of example with your E308L-16/E308-16. First we need to look at
the relevant requirements in the AWS A5.4 specification for stainless steel covered
electrodes. Table 1 shows the chemical composition requirements for the two classifi-
cations. Note that the only compositional difference between E308-16 and E308L-16 is
the carbon range. The carbon content of the deposit from E308-16 can be anything
from nil up to 0.08%, while the carbon content of the deposit from E308L-16 can range
from nil up to 0.04%. Obviously, if a given electrode meets the carbon requirement for
E308L-16, it also meets the carbon requirement for E308-16. If I only classify my elec-
trode as E308-16, you have no idea if the carbon is actually above or below 0.04%, but
if I classify it as E308L-16, you are guaranteed that the deposit will be 0.04% or less.
Beside carbon content, the only other difference in requirements between E308-16
and E308L-16 is in the mechanical property requirements for the weld metals (Table
2). The tensile strength requirement is higher for E308-16 than for E308L-16. So, if I
246
Table 1AWS A5.4 Composition Requirements (%)
C Mn P S Si Cr Ni Mo Cu
E308-16 0.08 0.5 0.04 0.03 0.90 18.0 9.0 0.75 0.75
max. to max. max. max. to to max. max.
2.5 21.0 11.0
E308L-16 0.04 0.5 0.04 0.03 0.90 18.0 9.0 0.75 0.75
max. to max. max. max. to to max. max.
2.5 21.0 11.0
Table 2AWS A5.4 Mechanical Property Requirements
Tensile Strength (min.) Elongation (min.)
E308-16 80,000 lb/in.2 35%

550 MPa
E308L-16 75,000 lb/in.2 35%
520 MPa
classify my electrodes as E308L-16, the user has no idea as to whether or not the weld
metal will exceed 80,000 lb/in.2 tensile strength. But if I classify it as E308-16, the
user is guaranteed that the weld metal will exceed 80,000 lb/in.2 tensile strength. So,
by dual classifying the electrode as E308L-16 and E308-16, the user receives a guar-
antee that the electrodes meet both the low-carbon requirement of E308L-16 and the
high-strength requirement of E308-16. This in turn allows the user to maintain a
smaller inventory.
Dual classification is not unique to E308-16 and E308L-16 covered electrodes. In AWS
A5.4 classifications this same situation arises also with alloy types 308Mo and
308MoL, 309 and 309L, 309Mo and 309MoL, 316 and 316L, and 317 and 317L.
Furthermore, this situation is not unique to covered stainless steel electrodes. The
flux cored stainless steel electrodes classified according to AWS A5.22 also allow for
this same dual classification based upon deposit chemical composition. The same
strength differentials exist between the low-carbon alloy requirements and the non-
low-carbon alloy requirements, and higher-strength low-carbon compositions can be
dual classified in exactly the same manner as the covered electrodes. In fact, flux
cored stainless electrodes have a second possibility for dual classification. In addition
to dual classification based upon chemical composition, flux cored stainless electrodes
can be dual classified based upon shielding gas. Today, it is quite common for a flux
cored stainless steel electrode to be suitable for both CO2 shielding gas and for 75%Ar-
25%CO2 shielding gas. If the electrode is classified with CO2 shielding gas, the classi-
fication is, for example, E308LTX-1, where the X is either a 0 for flat and horizon-
tal position only, or a 1 for all positions. And if the electrode is classified with 75%Ar-
25%CO2, the classification is, for example, E308LTX-4. So, it is possible for a given
247
flux cored stainless steel electrode to have four classifications: E308LT0-1, E308T0-1,
E308LT0-4, and E308T0-4, as an example. Many manufacturers of flux cored stain-
less steel electrodes classify in this way.
The situation with bare solid wires and rods or metal cored wires classified according
to AWS A5.9 is not quite so advantageous to the user. The reason for this is that the
classifications of AWS A5.9 do not include a strength requirement, primarily because
they are used for multiple welding processes (GMA, GTA, SA, and PA). The supplier
cannot know how the user will use the product. Nevertheless, suppliers can and do
use dual classification. In this case, dual classification only provides a guarantee of
carbon content meeting both classifications, e.g., ER308Si and ER308LSi. And this is
helpful to the user because the AWS D1.6, Structural Welding CodeStainless Steel,
prequalifies the nonlow-carbon stainless steel wires and rods for 5000 lb/in.2 higher-
strength applications than their low-carbon cousins.
So dual (or, in the case of flux cored stainless, multiple) classifications are a real bene-
fit to the user because they provide a more specific definition of the product than any
single classification does, and they permit a reduction in filler metal inventories.
6.11 How to Classify or Qualify Fluxes for SAW of

Stainless?
How can submerged arc flux for welding stainless steel or nickel-based
? alloys be classified for purposes of a welding procedure specification (WPS)
or procedure qualification record (PQR)?
May 2007
There is no AWS filler metal specification that considers classification of submerged

arc fluxes for welding stainless steels or nickel-based alloys. AWS classification of
fluxes for welding of carbon steel is addressed by the AWS A5.17 specification, and
classification of fluxes for welding of low-alloy steels is addressed in the AWS A5.23
specification. Both of these specifications classify flux by deposit mechanical proper-
ties (strength and toughness) with a specific wire, but these considerations, which are
critical for carbon steel and low-alloy steel weldments, are usually of secondary impor-
tance at best when welding stainless steels or nickel-based alloys. As a result, the
classification system used in the AWS A5.17 and A5.23 specifications is considered by
the AWS A5 Committee on Filler Metals and Allied Materials as useless for stainless
steel and nickel-based alloys.
For submerged arc welding of stainless steels and nickel-based alloys, the most impor-
tant concerns, rather than mechanical properties, involve the chemical composition
of the deposit. In particular, recovery of chromium and carbon in the weld metal is
critical.
For applications chiefly concerned with corrosion resistance at or near ambient tem-
perature, it is usually desirable to avoid carbon pickup from the flux. In general, it can
248
be safely said that fluxes specifically designed for stainless steel welding, and adver-
tised by their manufacturer as such, will not produce significant carbon pickup in the
deposit as compared to the carbon content of the electrode. However, it is not uncom-
mon to apply a flux that was originally designed for carbon steel or low-alloy steel to
stainless steel welding or even to nickel-based alloy welding. It happens that many
fluxes designed for carbon steel and low-alloy steel, usually those that are metallurgi-
cally basic (low in SiO2), have attractive welding characteristics with stainless steel
also. It can be attractive to the fabricator to use such flux for stainless or even for a
nickel-based alloy because the fabricator need not inventory a special flux for the high
alloys. Then it becomes important to inquire of the flux manufacturer whether or not
the flux will produce carbon pickup when used with a high-alloy electrode.
A different picture emerges when a stainless steel or nickel-based alloy weldment is

intended for high-temperature service. In this situation, carbon is a highly desirable
alloying element because formation of chromium and other alloy carbides improves
creep resistance. Then preservation of the normally high carbon content of the elec-
trode when it transfers into the weld metal is important. Some SAW fluxes, usually
those described as metallurgically acid (high in SiO2), can significantly reduce the car-
bon content of the weld metal as compared to that of the electrode, which would gener-
ally be undesirable for high-temperature service. There are also fluxes containing
carbonates or other carbonaceous compounds which can add carbon to the high-alloy
deposit as compared to the carbon content of the electrode.
Preservation of chromium from the electrode to the deposit is also important, for
maintenance of desired ferrite content, for corrosion resistance at temperatures at or
near ambient, and for oxidation resistance at high temperatures. There are fluxes,
usually metallurgically acid, which remove chromium from high-alloy weld metal.
There are other fluxes, usually metallurgically basic, which pretty well preserve the
chromium in the electrodea loss of on the order of 1% might be expected. And there
is a third group of fluxes, often described as chromium-compensating, which contain
metallic chromium or ferro-chromium particles within the flux particles. This third
group of fluxes can produce weld metal with significantly more chromium content
than that of the electrode used to make the weld.
On more than one occasion, I have proposed to the AWS A5D Subcommittee that it
develop a classification system for fluxes for stainless steel and nickel-based alloys
based upon recovery of chromium and carbon. But the committee rejected the sugges-
tion as being unnecessarily complicated and unlikely to lead to any degree of flux
interchangeability for a WPS or a PQR. So, in the AWS system, you are left with hav-
ing to write your WPS and PQR using the flux trade name as an essential variable. If
you change the flux trade name, you must develop a new WPS and a new PQR.
An alternative to classification (or lack thereof) according to AWS may be found in the
international standard ISO 14174, Welding consumablesFluxes for submerged arc
weldingClassification. This standard classifies SAW fluxes according to chemical
makeup of the flux and applications for the flux. The chemical makeup of the flux is
indicated by a symbol chosen by the manufacturer of the flux to indicate a rather loose
composition range, such as AB for an aluminate-basic flux containing at least 20%
Al2O3, at least 22% CaF2, and at least 40% Al2O3 + CaO + MgO, or CS for a calcium-
silicate flux containing at least 15% CaO + MgO and at least 55% CaO + MgO + SiO2.
But there is no indication of what constitutes the remainder of the flux. A Class 1
249
flux is suitable for carbon steels and low-alloy steels, a Class 2 flux is suitable for
stainless steels, nickel-based alloys and some hardfacing applications, a Class 3 flux
is suitable for hardfacing only and adds alloying elements, and a Class 4 flux is suit-
able for both Class 1 and Class 2 applications. ISO 14174 doesnt in any quantitative
way address recovery of carbon or chromium, so its utility for high-alloy weld metals
is somewhat limited.
Another possibility is to look to the European standard EN 760:1996, Welding

consumablesFluxes, for submerged arc weldingClassification, upon which ISO
14174 was based. Besides the chemical makeup of the flux and the applications for the
flux, this classification system includes a nonmandatory indication of the metallurgi-
cal behavior of the flux. The symbols given for metallurgical behavior in this standard
seem best geared toward describing what happens to Mn and Si content in carbon
steel and low-alloy steel weld metal. If applied to stainless steel or nickel-based alloys,
it would apply the symbol 1 for loss of over 0.7% Cr, symbol 2 for loss of 0.5 to 0.7%
Cr, symbol 3 for loss of 0.3 to 0.5% Cr, symbol 4 for loss of 0.1 to 0.3% Cr, symbol 5
for loss of 0.1 to gain of 0.1% Cr, symbol 6 to gain of 0.1 to 0.3% Cr, symbol 7 to gain
of 0.3 to 0.5% Cr, symbol 8 to gain of 0.5 to 0.7% Cr, and symbol 9 to gain of more
than 0.7% Cr. Practically, however, this does not provide much differentiation among
fluxes with which I am familiar, because all fluxes that are not chromium-compensat-
ing produce loss of nearly 1% Cr, or considerably more, when used with stainless steel
or nickel-based alloy wires, while chromium-compensating fluxes produce more like
1% Cr gain. So, both acidic and basic fluxes would get the symbol 1 for chromium
loss over 0.7%, and chromium-compensating fluxes would get the symbol 9 for more
than 0.7% Cr gain. But there would be no fluxes in between symbol 1 and symbol
9. I dont find that very useful.
Evidence of lack of commercial usefulness of the EN 760 metallurgical behavior sym-

bols is provided by the deletion of this provision when EN 760 was adopted as ISO
14174:2004, and my observation that even the European suppliers of fluxes for sub-
merged arc welding of stainless steels and nickel-based alloys do not seem to use these
metallurgical behavior symbols in their trade literature. The condition of EN 760 was
reviewed by CEN TC121 SC3 (the European committee responsible for that standard)
in March 2006, and the committee decided to make no revision for the present, but to
see what, if anything, ISO TC44 SC3 does with regard to possible revision of ISO
14174ISO review of that standard is due to take place in 2007.
The Japanese standard JIS Z 3324, Stainless steel solid wires and fluxes for sub-
merged arc welding, offers classification possibilities for fluxes for submerged arc
welding of stainless steels. The flux classification, however, is only based on whether
the flux is fused or bonded (agglomerated), and, if bonded, whether the flux changes
the alloy type from the wire to the deposit (e.g., by adding Nb (Cb) through the flux, a
308-type wire can be converted into a 347-type deposit). Again, there is no possibility
of indicating interchangeability of fluxes.
In conclusion, there appears to be no classification system for submerged arc fluxes for
stainless steel or nickel-based alloys that would provide any degree of interchange-
ability for use in a WPS or in a PQR. And there appears to be nothing looming on the
horizon that is likely to change that situation in the foreseeable future. You can only
write your WPS or PQR around the trade name of the flux, which requires a new WPS
and PQR whenever you change flux.
250
6.12 Hexavalent Cr in Stainless Fumes?

I understand that the exposure limit for workers to hexavalent chromium
? in fumes from welding has been greatly reduced. Can you offer any sugges-
tions to help my shop comply with this new limit?
May 2008
Stainless steel welding is not the only welding affected by the reduction of the permis-
sible exposure limit (PEL). Most nickel-based alloys include chromium, as do most
hardfacing alloys, and many low-alloy steels. Welding of all of these materials is
affected by the reduced PEL.
Actually, the new limit isnt all that new. OSHA published this PEL in the Federal
Register on Feb. 28, 2006. It reduced the PEL from the former limit of 0.05 mg/m3 to
the current limit of 0.005 mg/m3.
This change went into effect May 30, 2006, for employers with 20 or more employees.
It allowed six months for employers to come into compliance with most provisions,
and four years from the effective date to install feasible engineering controls. So, you
have two more years to complete installation of engineering controls. This is a good
time to begin.
I suggest that you first assess your current situation by making fume exposure mea-
surements now. Your OSHA compliance officer should be able and willing to help you.
If you find that current exposure approaches or exceeds the hexavalent chromium
limit, or any other fume limit, then you can turn to increased ventilation, local
exhaust, fume-extraction welding guns, and/or welding process changes to reduce the
exposure. You can get information about options for ventilation, local exhaust, and
fume-extraction welding guns from ANSI Z49.1, Safety in Welding, Cutting, and
Allied Processes (available for free download online at www.aws.org), and from AWS
F3.2M/F3.2, Ventilation Guide for Weld Fume (available from the American Welding
Society).
After you have made whatever changes seem appropriate, you should again measure
fume exposure to determine whether you are in compliance. If all of the changes fail to
produce compliance, then you may have to turn to air-supplied respirators for your
workers.
There are some very significant things you may be able to do in the area of welding
process changes that can have dramatic effects on hexavalent chromium exposure.
The remainder of this column addresses these options.
Chromium generally exists in three oxidation statesdivalent (Cr++), trivalent
(Cr+++), and hexavalent (Cr++++++). Only the hexavalent form is considered to be a
possible carcinogen (cancer-causing agent) and that falls under this regulation. The
divalent and trivalent compounds have PELs of 0.5 mg/m3, which is 100 times higher
than the new PEL for hexavalent chromium.
Certain elements strongly promote the formation of hexavalent chromium rather than
divalent or trivalent chromium. In welding, the most important hexavalent chromium
promoters are sodium and potassium. These elements are commonly found in slag
251
systems used for stainless steel welding because they excel at stabilizing the arc. They
also are included in the binders that hold the coating on covered electrodes. They
react with the chromium in the fumes to form sodium and potassium chromates,
which are the most important hexavalent chromium compounds found in stainless
steel welding fumes.
An interesting exercise is to make a bead-on-plate deposit with a stainless steel cov-
ered electrode, leave the condensed fume on the base metal until it cools, then plunge
it into clear water under a bright light. You should see a flash of yellow color, charac-
teristic of water-soluble hexavalent chromium, before the hexavalent chromium com-
pounds are diluted into the bulk of the water.
In studies that I conducted in my previous life at Teledyne McKay twenty years ago, I
generally found that the hexavalent chromium in the fumes from stainless steel cov-
ered electrodes and flux cored electrodes was on the order of 5% of the total fume. I
doubt that these products have changed drastically since then. If the hexavalent chro-
mium comprises 5% of the total fume, and the PEL for hexavalent chromium is 0.005
mg/m3, then the limit for total fume to stay under the PEL for hexavalent chromium
would be 0.005/0.05 = 0.1 mg/m3. This is extremely restrictive as compared to other
fume limits.
Engineering controls in the form of welding process changes are available to reduce
emission of hexavalent chromium in welding fume. Changing from covered electrodes
(SMAW process) or flux cored electrodes (FCAW process) to the submerged arc (SAW)
process where possible can have a major impact on reducing hexavalent chromium
exposure, and on reducing all fume exposure. Of course, SAW is limited to the flat
position and to stainless steel that is generally at least 3/16 in. (5 mm) thick, while a
lot of stainless fabrication is much thinner than that and the flat position for welding
is often not possible. Be aware, however, that most SAW fluxes contain sodium and/or
potassium compounds, so that whatever fumes do escape from the flux cover can still
be relatively high in hexavalent chromiumit is only the quantity of fume that
escapes that is reduced by a change from SMAW or FCAW to SAW.
Another alternative is to change from flux shielded processes SMAW or FCAW to a
process that doesnt employ a flux, thereby virtually eliminating sodium and potas-
sium from the arc environment and drastically reducing the formation of hexavalent
chromium compounds in the fumes. The fluxless welding processes include gas metal
arc (GMA), gas tungsten arc (GTA), plasma arc (PA), laser beam (LB), and electron
beam (EB). Perhaps the easiest to implement, without a loss of productivity or pur-
chase of very expensive equipment, is GMAW. Per pound of weld metal deposited, in
my experience, GMAW produces on the order of half as much total fume as SMAW or
FCAW, or less, and the hexavalent chromium content of that fume, as a percent of the
total, is in general orders of magnitude lower than in the fumes from SMAW or FCAW.
This does not mean that you will not find any hexavalent chromium in the fumes from
GMAW. You will still have to measure to determine that you are in compliance with
the new OSHA PEL for hexavalent chromium, as well as with the other OSHA PELs
including that for manganese.
So as a significant step toward getting into compliance with OSHA, Id suggest chang-
ing, wherever possible, from SMAW or FCAW to either SAW or a fluxless welding pro-
cess like GMA for stainless steel fabrication and for fabrication of other chromium-
containing materials.
252
6.13 Air-Carbon Arc Gouging of Stainless Steels

Is it acceptable to use air carbon arc gouging to produce a weld joint prepa-
? ration or to remove defects found in 308L or 316L stainless steel weld
metaleither joints or cladding? Concerns have been expressed about carbon
pickup from the carbon electrode causing damage to corrosion resistance of the
stainless steel weld metal.
September 2008
This question has been around for more than 50 years, and recent discussions can still
be found on the AWS Web site forum. It was considered by Hard (Ref. 1) already in
1954, although he did not look at low-carbon stainless steel. The concern usually
expressed is that carbon contamination in the metal surface will lead to chromium
carbide precipitation with resulting sensitization of the weld metal and/or heat-
affected zone.
Actually, there is a second concern that no one seems to mention. This concern is the
dross and molten metal that is not blown away by the air stream will also experience
nitrogen pickup from the air. If welding is done on the dross and thin film of metal
melted by the air carbon arc but not blown away, this nitrogen will enter the weld
metal. Since nitrogen is an austenite-promoting element, ferrite content will be
reduced and could potentially be reduced to a level low enough that solidification
cracking could occur in weld metals like 308L and 316L, which are designed to contain
some ferrite.
The manufacturers of air carbon arc gouging equipment provide lots of information on
how to correctly apply the method to carbon steels, low-alloy steels, stainless steels,
aluminum, etc. AWS C5.3:2000, Recommended Practices for Air Carbon Arc Gouging
and Cutting, is an excellent resource for noncommercial information. The correct tech-
nique generally involves a pushing inclination to the carbon electrode, with the air
stream directed behind the advancing electrode. Then there are very specific recom-
mendations concerning the correct current range for a given carbon electrode, the cor-
rect electrode extension, and the correct air pressure. Figure 1, reproduced from AWS
C5.3:2000, shows the correct technique.
Along with correct gouging technique, correct cleanup after gouging is essential. For
stainless steels, this means grinding away all traces of dross and oxidized surfaces
from the gouge area. Only a bright metallic surface should remain before welding is
initiated. If this is done, with proper technique in the application of air carbon arc
gouging, all traces of nitrogen pickup and carbon pickup will be removed and the
ground surface will be quite suitable for subsequent welding.
Low air pressure in air carbon arc gouging is a particular concern because it can per-
mit greater depth of carburized and nitrided metal than normal grinding would
remove. Christensen (Ref. 2) deliberately used low air pressure for air carbon arc
gouging 304L stainless cladding as compared to a gouge done with proper air pressure
and to a machined groove. Chips were removed by a superficial cut from each of the
three surfaces then analyzed for carbon content. The surface prepared entirely by
machining was found to contain 0.03% C. The surface gouged with proper air pressure
253
Figure 1Proper Air Carbon Arc Gouging Technique
was found to contain 0.04% C, and that gouged with low air pressure was found to
contain 0.10% C. Next, each prepared groove was welded with low-carbon stainless
steel (grade not specified), and the weld deposit was analyzed for carbon content. The
deposited weld metal in all three cases was found to contain 0.03% C. Christensen fur-
ther noted that nitric acid corrosion tests according to ASTM A262, on backgouged
and welded root pass surfaces, showed no adverse corrosion results.
Christensen does not state whether or not the gouged surfaces were subsequently
ground to bright metal before the chips were taken for chemical analysis or before
welding. From the overall tone of the paper, I believe that no grinding was done.
Christensen also did not consider nitrogen pickup or ferrite loss. Even if Christensens
results are based upon not grinding, I would not advocate welding over the as-gouged
surface without grinding to bright metal. It is not good practice, from the viewpoint of
producing sound, defect-free welds, to weld over heavily oxidized surfaces. And nitro-
gen contamination of the oxidized surface can result in lower than expected ferrite
content and a possibility for cracking. A competent inspector can easily determine
visually whether grinding to bright metal has been properly done before welding
begins.
As long as grinding to bright metal follows air carbon arc gouging, I see no reason that
air carbon arc gouging cannot be an acceptable method for joint preparation of stain-
less steel or removal of defects from stainless steel welds before repair welding.
References
1. Hard, A. R. 1954. Exploratory tests of the air-carbon arc cutting process. Welding
Journal 33(6): 261-s to 264-s.
2. Christensen, L. J. 1973. Air carbon-arc gouging. Welding Journal 52(12): 782791.
254
6.14 AWS D1.6 Guidance to Minimize Restraint

When Welding Stainless Steels?
We are to fabricate a rather complicated weldment of 304L stainless steel
? plates. We previously fabricated a similar weldment of carbon steel, and
we used heavy restraint to reduce distortion and shrinkage. We understand that
stainless steel has a greater tendency to distort during welding than does carbon
steel. Our customer is invoking AWS D1.6/D1.6M:2007, Structural Welding
CodeStainless Steel. We are concerned about how to restrain in view of Clause
5.3.4 of that Code, especially the last sentence of that clause.
September 2010
Your understanding that stainless steel has greater tendency for distortion and
shrinkage is only partly correct. The tendency for weld distortion and shrinkage is
closely related to the magnitude of the coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) of the
metal. The larger the CTE, the greater is the tendency for weld distortion and shrink-
age. Table 1 lists average CTE data over the temperature range of 0 to 538C (32 to
1000F) for carbon steel and various stainless steels, as presented in the soon-to-be-
published Welding Handbook, Ninth Edition, Volume 4, Chapter 5, Table 5.2. Within
this temperature range, the weld metals develop enough strength to produce most of
the distortion and shrinkage a weldment experiences.
From these data, you can see that martensitic and ferritic stainless steels behave sim-
ilarly to carbon steels with regard to tendency for distortion and shrinkage during
welding. Duplex stainless steels are a little more severe in this regard than carbon
steels. But it is easy to see that austenitic stainless steels like 304L have a much
greater tendency for weld distortion and shrinkage than do carbon steels, and in fact,
more than any other type of stainless steel.
Now turning to AWS D1.6/D1.6M: 2007, Clause 5.3.4 of the code reads as follows, In
assemblies, joints expected to have significant shrinkage should be welded before
Table 1Mean Coefficients of Thermal Expansion

[0 to 538C (32 to 1000F)]
Coefficient of Thermal Expansion
Steel Type m/m/C 106 in./in./F 106
Carbon 11.7 6.5
Ferritic Stainless 11.2 to 12.1 6.2 to 6.7
Martensitic Stainless 11.6 to 12.1 6.4 to 6.7
Duplex Stainless 13.3 to 13.7 7.4 to 7.6
Austenitic Stainless 17.0 to 19.2 9.4 to 10.7
255
joints expected to have less shrinkage. They should also be welded with as little
restraint as possible. First, I would point out the word should that appears in both
sentences of Clause 5.3.4. This is a nonmandatory word, which means that each sen-
tence provides guidance, not requirements. This means that you have the opportunity
to exercise engineering judgment in applying this guidance. I refer you to Clause
1.3.8.2 of D1.6/D1.6M:2007, which I quote as follows: Should. The word should is used
to recommend practices that are considered beneficial, but are not requirements.
Clause 5.3.4 in D1.6 was lifted, word-for-word, from AWS D1.1/D1.1M, Structural
Welding CodeSteel. The year of the D1.1 code is not important because the clause
hasnt changed in some time. In D1.1/D1.1M:2008, this same clause appears as Clause
5.21.5. It is in D1.1 because many structural steels have limited ductility and can be
susceptible to hydrogen-induced cracking. This same consideration would apply to
martensitic stainless steels. It makes very good sense to use as little restraint as pos-
sible for welding martensitic stainless steels. But 304L is not a martensitic stainless
steel, it is an austenitic stainless steel.
This clause is also sensible for welding fully austenitic stainless steelsthose like
310, 320, 330, etc., in which weld metal ferrite is not possible. Such stainless steels,
which solidify as 100% austenite, are susceptible to solidification cracking, and
restraint makes solidification cracking more likely. This is not to say that such steels
cannot be welded with high restraint, but welding such steels with high restraint is
risky. Welding of these steels is best done with low heat input techniques that produce
convex weld beads, and additional precautions should be taken.
However, austenitic stainless steels whose weld metals solidify as primary ferrite
(304L, 316L, and the other austenitic stainless steels listed as prequalified for welding
in Chapter 3 of AWS D1.6/D1.6M:2007) are highly ductile and highly resistant to
solidification cracking. They also do not form hard weld heat-affected zones, even
when rapidly cooled. They are essentially immune to hydrogen-induced cracking.
Even very severe restraint is unlikely to cause any cracking problems when welding
these steels. So adhering to this guidance about minimizing restraint is entirely
unnecessary in welding such stainless steels.
The same consideration applies to welding the duplex stainless steels. These steels too
are not hardenable, and they are not susceptible to hydrogen-induced cracking except
when high filler metal hydrogen combines with high Ferrite Number (greater than 70
FN). Modern duplex stainless steels and duplex stainless filler metals comfortably
avoid these conditions, and they are quite ductile. They are almost as resistant to
solidification cracking as the austenitic stainless steels which solidify as primary fer-
rite. As with the austenitic stainless steels that solidify as primary ferrite, adhering to
the D1.6 guidance about minimizing restraint during welding is entirely unnecessary
with duplex stainless steels.
In conclusion, when welding austenitic stainless steels that are prequalified in Chap-
ter 3 of AWS D1.6/D1.6M, or when welding duplex stainless steels, sound engineering
judgment would allow you to weld these steels without adhering to the guidance to
minimize restraint. Perhaps in the future, D1.6 will be modified to clarify the guid-
ance suggesting minimizing restraint. I suggest you use very rigid restraint in weld-
ing your 304L to minimize distortion and shrinkage.
256
WELDING STAINLESS STEELQUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ANNEX A
Annex A
References and Sources for Further Information
American Welding Society (www.aws.org)
8669 NW 36 St, # 130, Miami, FL 33166
AWS A4.2M (ISO 8249 MOD), Standard Procedures for Calibrating Magnetic
Instruments to Measure the Delta Ferrite Content of Austenitic and Duplex
Ferritic-Austenitic Stainless Steel Weld Metal
AWS A5.4/A5.4M, Specification for Stainless Steel Electrodes for Shielded Metal
Arc Welding
AWS A5.9/A5.9M, Specification for Bare Stainless Steel Welding Electrodes and
Rods
AWS A5.22/A5.22M, Specification for Stainless Steel Flux Cored and Metal Cored
Welding Electrodes and Rods
AWS D1.6M/D1.6, Structural Welding CodeStainless Steel
AWS D10.4, Recommended Practices for Welding Austenitic Chromium-Nickel
Stainless Steel Piping and Tubing
AWS D10.18M/D10.18, Guide for Welding Ferritic/Austenitic Duplex Stainless
Steel Piping and Tubing
AWS D18.1, Austenitic Stainless Steel Tube and Pipe
AWS Welding Handbook
Other
Lippold, J. C., and Kotecki, D. J. 2005. Welding Metallurgy and Weldability of
Stainless Steels, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, New Jersey.
257
Basic Safety Precautions

Burn Protection. Molten metal, sparks, slag, and hot work surfaces are produced by
welding, cutting, and allied processes. These can cause burns if precautionary mea-
sures are not used. Workers should wear protective clothing made of fire-resistant
material. Pant cuffs, open pockets, or other places on clothing that can catch and
retain molten metal or sparks should not be worn. High-top shoes or leather leggings
and fire resistant gloves should be worn. Pant legs should be worn over the outside of
high-top shoes. Helmets or hand shields that provide protection for the face, neck, and
ears, and a head covering to protect the head should be used. In addition, appropriate
eye protection should be used.
Electrical Hazards. Electric shock can kill. However, it can be avoided. Live electri-
cal parts should not be touched. The manufacturers instructions and recommended
safe practices should be read and understood. Faulty installation, improper ground-
ing, and incorrect operation and maintenance of electrical equipment are all sources
of danger. All electrical equipment and the workpiece should be grounded. The work-
piece lead is not a ground lead. It is used only to complete the welding circuit. A sepa-
rate connection is required to ground the workpiece. The workpiece should not be
mistaken for a ground connection.
Fumes and Gases. Many welding, cutting, and allied processes produce fumes and
gases which may be harmful to health. Avoid breathing the air in the fume plume
directly above the arc. Do not weld in a confined area without a ventilation system.
Use point-of-welding fume removal when welding galvanized steel, zinc, lead, cad-
mium, chromium, manganese, brass, or bronze. Do not weld on piping or containers
that have held hazardous materials unless the containers have been inerted properly.
Compressed Gas Cylinders. Keep caps on cylinders when not in use. Make sure
that gas cylinders are chained to a wall or other structural support. Do not weld on
cylinders.
Radiation. Arc welding may produce ultraviolet, infrared, or light radiation. Always
wear protective clothing and eye protection to protect the skin and eyes from radia-
tion. Shield others from light radiation from your welding operation. The use of filter-
ing masks or airline respirators will be required if it is determined that personnel are
being exposed to excessive pollutants.
Additional information on welding safety may be obtained from the American Welding
Society, 8669 NW 36 St, # 130, Miami, FL 33166. ANSI Z49.1, Safety in Welding, Cut-
ting, and Allied Processes, and the AWS Safety and Health Fact Sheets are available
online and free of charge on the AWS website: http://www.aws.org/technical/facts/.
xvii
Introduction
Chapter 1
Welding of Austenitic Stainless Steels
Austenitic stainless steels are by far the most common and the most commonly
welded of all of the stainless steel alloy families. A stainless steel is austenitic if its
crystal structure is face-centered cubic. These steels are easily identified by the fact
that they are usually non-magnetic unless they are cold worked. Cold working tends
to induce martensite formation when the austenite is metastable, and martensite is
ferromagnetic. It should be noted that the composition of many, but not all, nominally
austenitic stainless steels is adjusted by the steel mill so that the alloy solidifies with
a small amount of ferrite. This ferrite usually disappears during hot working, but
reappears when the metal is autogenously welded, which improves the weldability of
the steel.
A first consideration in welding these steels is usually whether or not some ferrite can
be obtained in the weld metal. If so, austenitic alloys are usually easy to weld. How-
ever, the austenitic alloy weld metals in which the formation of ferrite is not possible
are often susceptible to solidification cracking. Therefore many questions relate to the
possibility of obtaining ferrite in the weld metal. More information on austenite, fer-
rite, and other phases can be found in the references listed in Annex A.
Chapter 2
Welding of Ferritic Stainless Steels
A stainless steel is ferritic if its crystal structure is body-centered cubic. These steels
are strongly ferro-magnetic and are usually soft. They can be subdivided into three
generations. The first generation contains enough carbon so that some austenite
forms in the HAZ during welding, and that austenite transforms to martensite upon
cooling. As a result, first generation ferritic stainless steels usually require preheat
and postweld heat treatment in order to obtain reasonable properties after welding.
The second generation of ferritic stainless steels are those with approximately 12% to
16% chromium and with stabilizing elements such as titanium, which combines with
carbon to remove the carbon from solid solution and thereby prevents austenite for-
mation. These are easily welded without preheat and are usable without postweld heat
treatment.
vii
The third generation of ferritic stainless steels are extremely low in carbon content
and contain 18% or more of chromium and usually considerable molybdenum. Out-
standing corrosion resistance is expected of these alloys, especially in chloride-con-
taining environments. They are susceptible to grain growth in the weld metal and
heat affected zone which can result in serious embrittlement. These steels need to be
welded with low heat input, preferably in a single pass. They can be embrittled by
formation of intermetallic compounds during heat treatment, so in general heat treat-
ment is avoided.
Chapter 3
Welding of Martensitic Stainless Steels
Martensitic stainless steels contain enough carbon and nickel to obtain nearly 100%
austenite at high temperatures. The austenite transforms to martensite during cool-
ing to ambient temperature or below. These steels are air hardening, which means
that they will transform to martensite under almost any conceivable cooling rate. As a
result, they are susceptible to hydrogen induced cracking and therefore generally
require preheat and controlled cooling after welding to avoid cracking. Most
martensitic stainless steels also require postweld heat treatment to obtain optimum
properties.
A major concern with these steels is the amount of carbon. As the carbon content is
increased, the requirements for preheat, controlled cooling after welding and postweld
heat treatment become more stringent in order to avoid hydrogen induced cracking
and to obtain useful properties.
Chapter 4
Welding of Duplex Stainless Steels
Duplex stainless steels solidify as essentially 100% ferrite, approximately half of

which transforms to austenite during cooling at temperatures above about 1900F
(1040C). The base metals are held in the temperature range for austenite formation
so they can reach this desirable room temperature microstructure. The formation of
austenite requires diffusion of alloying elements, so time in the austenite forming
temperature range is critical. This time is a matter of seconds for the weld metal
and heat-affected zone, while the base metal has many minutes to complete the
transformation.
Welding filler metals commonly are enriched in nickel content to assist in austenite
formation under the more rapid cooling conditions of welding. However, the critical
element in formation of austenite in the weld metal and in the heat affected zone is
nitrogen. Nitrogen is a much smaller atom than the iron, chromium, nickel and
molybdenum atoms that make up the majority of the duplex stainless steel. As a
result, nitrogen can diffuse much faster than any other element which accounts for
its ability to speed austenite formation. With insufficient nitrogen, as-welded micro-
viii
structures in the weld and HAZ tend to contain too much ferrite which makes the
weldment brittle.
The ferrite in duplex stainless steels can also transform at temperatures below that
which forms austenite into intermetallic compounds. The intermetallic compounds
severely embrittle the alloy. It is essential to avoid extended time in this intermediate
temperature range.
Chapter 5
Welding of Dissimilar Alloys
Dissimilar alloy welding can include both joining two different alloy types and clad-
ding of one alloy with another. The range of possibilities is nearly unlimited. In many
cases, both for joining and for cladding, the filler metal is austenitic. Then the empha-
sis is often on choosing a filler metal that will, under the dilution conditions of the
weld, result in weld metal containing a little ferrite to avoid solidification cracking
susceptibility. The filler metal selection can become a complex problem because dilu-
tion changes from one weld pass to another. Estimates of dilution become essential for
selecting filler metal for these applications.
Chapter 6
Odds and Ends
The majority of questions and answers in this book are arranged according to alloy
type. However, some questions are not specific to one alloy type. These are collected in
this chapter, along with questions addressed to precipitation hardening stainless
steels which can have two microstructure typesmartensitic and austenitic.
ix
List of Questions
Chapter 1 Page
1.1 Sticky Slag in SAW of 347? .................................................................................... 1
1.2 Magnetism in ER308LSi Filler Metal? .................................................................. 1
1.3 Why is 304L Limited to 0.03% C while E308L-16 is Limited to 0.04% C? .......... 2
1.4 Can I Use ER308LSi for SAW? .............................................................................. 3
1.5 Hot Cracking in 320? .............................................................................................. 4
1.6 Ferrite Standards? .................................................................................................. 5
1.7 Low FN in Vertical-Up in SMAW Welding? .......................................................... 6
1.8 Filler Metal for 6% Mo Stainless? .......................................................................... 7
1.9 No Ferrite but Centerline Cracking in GMAW? ................................................... 7
1.10 HK-40 Repair Welding? .......................................................................................... 8
1.11 Filler Metal for 1/4 Hard 304L? ............................................................................. 9
1.12 High Silicon vs. Normal? ...................................................................................... 10
1.13 Welding Free-Machining Stainless? .................................................................... 11
1.14 Best Electrode to Use for Long-Term Exposure? ................................................ 12
1.15 How to PWHT 304L Weldments for Dimensional Stability?.............................. 13
1.16 Can I Break the Coating off a 347 Electrode and Use the Core Wire
for GTA?................................................................................................................. 14
1.17 Can I Purge with Nitrogen Instead of Argon?..................................................... 15
1.18 Can I Weld Safely on Cold Stainless? .................................................................. 16
1.19 What is the Right Covered Electrode Filler Metal for 321 Stainless? ............... 17
1.20 What is the Difference Between Percent Ferrite and Ferrite Number? ............ 18
1.21 Corrosion Resistance of 304L to 316L Joints with 308L vs. 316L?.................... 21
1.22 Ferrite Limits for 4K Fracture Toughness? ........................................................ 22
1.23 Matching Filler Metal for 310H Base MetalNot 310H Filler Metal,
but 310 Filler Metal? ............................................................................................ 24
1.24 What is the Correct Filler Metal for 316LN? ...................................................... 25
1.25 Why is 308L Required to Meet 35% Elongation While 316L is Only
Required to Meet 30% Elongation? ...................................................................... 27
1.26 Lamellar Tearing in 304L Stainless?................................................................... 28
1.27 Stainless Filler Metal to meet 15 mils Lateral Expansion at 320F? .............. 29
1.28 305 Tube Welding vs. 304? ................................................................................... 31
1.29 Filler Metal for Nitronic Stainless? ................................................................... 33
1.30 Linear Porosity in 310?......................................................................................... 37
1.31 Crater Cracking in ER209 Stainless at 4 FN? .................................................... 39
1.32 Water Cooling to Reduce Interpass Time for 304H?........................................... 41
1.33 Austenite Reversion for 304L that has been Cold Worked? ............................... 43
1.34 Low FN in ER347 Due to N Pickup?.................................................................... 45
1.35 Use of 312 to Weld 330?........................................................................................ 48
1.36 Differences in Diagram Predictions for Ferrite? ................................................. 51
xiii
Page
1.37 Copper Cracking Due to Backup Bar? ................................................................. 54

1.38 Does the Testing Temperature Affect FN Measurements? ................................ 56
1.39 Does the Testing Temperature Affect FN Measurements? ................................ 59
1.40 What is Sugaring?................................................................................................. 59
1.41 What is Sensitization (Carbide Precipitation)? ................................................... 61
1.42 Weld 304L at 0F?................................................................................................. 64
1.43 Reheat Cracking in FCAW Welds of 308L Due to Bi? ........................................ 66
1.44 Root Pass Cracking in AL6XN Welded with ERNiCrMo-3?............................... 68
1.45 Small Cracks in Fully Austenitic Stainless Bend Tests? ................................... 70
1.46 Reheat Cracking at 900C in 321 Stainless? ....................................................... 72
1.47 Pitting Corrosion in 304L Agricultural Sprayer?................................................ 75
1.48 Solidification Cracking in E310-15 Fillet Welds? ............................................... 77
1.49 Solidification Cracking Resistance with Higher Mn 25-20 Type Electrodes? ... 79
1.50 Requiring Both Calculated and Measured FN for Weld Metal? ........................ 82
1.51 8.2:1 Cr:Mo Ratio in 316 Weld Metal? ................................................................. 85
1.52 Restraint and Stress-Corrosion Cracking in Austenitic Stainless Steel
Weldments? ........................................................................................................... 87
1.53 16-8-2 Filler Metal to Weld 316H Stainless Steel? ............................................. 89
1.54 ER309LMo Availability?....................................................................................... 92
1.54 ER309LMo Availability?....................................................................................... 94
Chapter 2
2.1 What Became of the E409T-2 Classification in AWS A5.22? ............................. 99
2.2 Filler Metal for 446 When I Cant Get 446 Filler? .............................................. 99
2.3 Stick Electrode for 409? ...................................................................................... 101
2.4 Heat Treatment of 430 Weldment?.................................................................... 102
2.5 Bend Tests of 409 SAW WeldsHydrogen Cracking During Bending? .......... 104
2.6 Martensite in the HAZ of 3Cr12Ti or no Ti?.................................................. 107
Chapter 3
3.1 Welding High Carbon Martensitics?.................................................................. 113
3.2 410NiMo for 22 RC max.?................................................................................... 114
3.3 What are Super Martensitic Stainlesses? ......................................................... 116
3.4 Bend Testing of Low Ductility Stainless?.......................................................... 117
3.5 Martensite Start Temperature Prediction for Martensitic Stainless?............. 119
3.6 410 with 410NiMo Filler Metal, 1400F PWHT? .............................................. 123
3.7 Bend Test Failures in Low Carbon 410 Welds? ................................................ 125
Chapter 4
4.1 What are Super Duplex Stainlesses?................................................................. 129
4.2 Welded 2205 Head Cracked After Annealing? .................................................. 129
4.3 2205 to UNS S31803 vs. S32205? ...................................................................... 130
4.4 Welding Super Duplex S32750 with No Intermetallics? .................................. 131
4.5 Excessive Fill Pass Heat Input in Groove Weld in Zeron 100 Sigma +
Secondary Austenite, Fails Impacts?................................................................. 134
4.6 PWHT of Duplex Cladding?................................................................................ 136
xiv
Page
4.7 Resistance Welding of Lean Duplex LDX 2101? ..............................................138

4.8 Arc Strikes on Duplex Stainless?........................................................................142
4.9 Filler Metal Selection for Annealed Duplex Stainless Steel?............................144
4.10 High Ferrite with ER2553 for Ferralium 255? ................................................148
4.11 Why is Nitrogen Essential to Duplex Stainless Steel Weld Metal?..................150
Chapter 5
5.1 Why Cant I Weld 304L to Carbon Steel with Carbon Steel Filler?..................155
5.2 For Welding 409 to A36, Do I Have to Use 309L? .............................................156
5.3 Stainless to Galvanized? .....................................................................................157
5.4 A Reader Points Out that Hot Dipped Galvanizing is Different from
Electroplated Galvanizing. Does this Affect Need to Remove Zinc?.................157
5.5 FN in Cladding CrMo Steel Vanishes in PWHT. Why? ....................................158
5.6 Weld Cast Iron with Austenitic Stainless? ........................................................159
5.7 Why Not Use 308L Filler Metal to Join Carbon Steel to 304 Base
Metal? ...................................................................................................................160
5.8 Can I Use 309 for Both 304 to Carbon Steel and 304 to Itself? ........................163
5.9 Can I Use CO2 for GMAW-S Welding of Mild Steel to 304 with
ER309LSi?............................................................................................................164
5.10 410 to 304L? .........................................................................................................165
5.11 Filler Metal and PWHT for Joining 2205 to Carbon Steel? ..............................168
5.12 Welding Over Nickel Alloy Cladding (e.g., 625 Over 2-1/4 Cr-1 Mo to
304H) ....................................................................................................................170
5.13 Commercial 309L Electrodes versus MIL 309L ElectrodesCracking in
Stainless to Mild Steel Joints?............................................................................172
5.14 Welding Annealed 410 to Itself and to Mild Steel?............................................174
5.15 Stud Welding Mild Steel Studs (ASTM A29) to 304? ........................................177
5.16 Why is Stainless Steel Weld Metal so Successful in Eliminating Cold
Cracks from the HAZ of Carbon Steel? ..............................................................178
5.17 312 Filler Metal for a Transition Joint Between Carbon Steel and 304H
for 700F Service? ................................................................................................179
5.18 Using Mild Steel for Both Sides of a Qualification Test for Mild Steel to
Stainless? .............................................................................................................181
5.19 Procedure Qualification for 416 to 304 Bar Stock?............................................185
5.20 320 to 316L? .........................................................................................................187
5.21 SAW Cladding with 309L, DCEN? .....................................................................190
5.22 Hardfacing of Stainless Components (e.g., 40 RC for a Forceps for a
Veterinarian to Extract Teeth from Horses)? ....................................................192
5.23 Filler Metal and PWHT for 410 to 316L, 30 Rockwell C? .................................195
5.24 Welding 316L to CD4MCuASTM A890-1A vs. 1B?........................................198
5.25 Autogenous GTAW of 316L to 430? ....................................................................200
5.26 Welding Stainless to Cast Iron ...........................................................................203
5.27 Filler Metal for 409 to 410? .................................................................................206
5.28 Inhomogeneities in SAW Overlay with Metal Core Stainless? .........................208
5.29 Root Pass Cracking in SAW Weld of Mild Steel to 304L? .................................210
5.30 Autogenous GTA Fillet Weld of 304L Over Carbon Steel?................................212
5.31 Autogenous GTA Fillet Weld of Carbon Steel Over 304L?................................215
xv
Page
5.32 GTA Fillet Weld of Nitronic 60 to Carbon Steel? ............................................ 217

5.33 Welding 15-5PH to 304L? ................................................................................... 219
5.34 ER307 vs. G 18 8 Mn Cracking Resistance in Dissimilar Welds?.................... 222
5.35 Low Tensile Elongation with E312-16 Weld Metal? ......................................... 225
5.36 Welding 15-5PH to T1 Steel?.............................................................................. 227
5.37 Modifying a 304H Weld Originally Made with ENiCrFe-3?............................. 229
Chapter 6
6.1 Starting Porosity with Coated Stainless?.......................................................... 233
6.2 Root Side Cleaning of StainlessASTM A380.................................................. 234
6.3 Gas Tracks with Flux Cored Stainless?............................................................. 235
6.4 Getting Rid of Silicon Islands on GMA Welds? ................................................. 236
6.5 What is the Difference Between a -16 and a -17 Coating? ............................... 237
6.6 What is the Black Soot Beside GMA and GTA Welds in Stainless? ................ 238
6.7 Eccentric Penetration in Orbital GTAW When Low S Heat is Joined to
High S Heat? ....................................................................................................... 239
6.8 Nitrogen Purging and Chromium Nitride Formation in Stainless
Welding? .............................................................................................................. 240
6.9 Welding 17-7PH?................................................................................................. 243
6.10 Dual Classification of Filler Metals?.................................................................. 246
6.11 How to Classify or Qualify Fluxes for SAW of Stainless?................................. 248
6.12 Hexavalent Cr in Stainless Fumes?................................................................... 251
6.13 Air-Carbon Arc Gouging of Stainless Steels...................................................... 253
6.14 AWS D1.6 Guidance to Minimize Restraint When Welding Stainless
Steels?.................................................................................................................. 255
xvi

Welding Stainless Steel - Questions and Answers A Guide For Troubleshooting Stainless Steel Welding-Related Problems - AWS (2013)

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Welding Stainless Steel - Questions and Answers A Guide For Troubleshooting Stainless Steel Welding-Related Problems - AWS (2013)

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Questions and Answers

A Guide for Troubleshooting

This publication is designed to provide information in regard to the subject matter

Photocopy Rights. No portion of this document may be reproduced, stored in a

Authorization to photocopy items for internal, personal, or educational classroom use

About the Author

Chapter 1Welding of Austenitic Stainless Steels................................................1

Chapter 2Welding of Ferritic Stainless Steels ..................................................99

Chapter 3Welding of Martensitic Stainless Steels .........................................113

Chapter 4Welding of Duplex Stainless Steels..................................................129

Chapter 5Welding of Dissimilar Alloys .............................................................155

Chapter 6Odds and Ends......................................................................................233

Annex AReferences and Sources for Further Information ..........................257

1.1 Sticky Slag in SAW of 347?

1.2 Magnetism in ER308LSi Filler Metal?

1.3 Why is 304L Limited to 0.03% C while E308L-16

1.4 Can I Use ER308LSi for SAW?

1.5 Hot Cracking in 320?

1.6 Ferrite Standards?

The primary standards consist of an iron substrate that is ferromagnetic, covered by

1. Magne-Gage is a registered trademark of Magne-Gage Sales & Service Co., Inc.

1.7 Low FN in Vertical-Up in SMAW Welding?

1.8 Filler Metal for 6% Mo Stainless?

1.9 No Ferrite but Centerline Cracking in GMAW?

1.10 HK-40 Repair Welding?

Essentially, HK40 is a high-carbon version of 310 stainless. The nominal composition

1.11 Filler Metal for 1/4 Hard 304L?

1.12 High Silicon vs. Normal?

1.13 Welding Free-Machining Stainless?

A change to another grade of free-machining stainless steel, such as 303Se, is unlikely

1.14 Best Electrode to Use for Long-Term

If a matching filler metal were chosen, it would be appropriate to specify a limit on

1.15 How to PWHT 304L Weldments for

Postweld heat treatment (PWHT) is commonly applied to large, complex weldments of

A safer approach is to reduce the PWHT temperature, Id suggest PWHT at 800 to

1.16 Can I Break the Coating off a 347 Electrode

1.17 Can I Purge with Nitrogen Instead of Argon?

1.18 Can I Weld Safely on Cold Stainless?

1.19 What is the Right Covered Electrode Filler

Table 1Comparisons of 304, 304H, 321, and 347

304 0.08 2.0 0 0.045 0.030 0.75 18.0 to 8.0 to

304H 0.04 to 2.00 0.045 0.030 0.75 18.0 to 8.0 to

321 0.08 2.00 0.045 0.030 0.75 17.0 to 9.0 to Ti = 5

347 0.08 2.00 0.045 0.030 0.75 17.0 to 9.0 to Nb =

ER321 0.08 1.0 to 0.03 0.03 0.30 to 18.5 to 9.0 to 0.75 Ti = 9C

E347-XX 0.08 0.5 to 0.04 0.03 0.90 18.0 to 9.0 to 0.75 Nb = 8C

that prevent chromium-carbide precipitation also provide improved resistance to

1.20 What is the Difference Between Percent

Determination of ferrite by metallographic means turned out to be equally non repro-

Round robin studies of FN determination by the Welding Research Council, and by

So, to summarize, Ferrite Number measurement is more reproducible than ferrite

1.21 Corrosion Resistance of 304L to 316L Joints

Table 1304L Base Metal vs. 308L Filler Metals

C, % Mn, % P, % S, % Si, % Cr, % Ni, % Mo, %

A 312 0.035 2.00 0.040 0.030 0.75 18.0 to 8.00 to Not

Table 2316L Base Metal and Filler Metal

C, % Mn, % P, % S, % Si, % Cr, % Ni, % Mo, %

A 312 0.035 2.00 0.040 0.030 0.75 16.0 to 10.0 to 2.0 to

1.22 Ferrite Limits for 4K Fracture Toughness?

a gradual decline in toughness, measured as either absorbed energy or lateral expan-

1.23 Matching Filler Metal for 310H Base Metal

Table 1310 Base Metals and Filler Metals