Materials and Design 63 (2014) 278285

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Materials and Design

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/matdes

Microstructural, compositional and mechanical investigation of Shielded

Metal Arc Welding (SMAW) welded superaustenitic UNS N08028
(Alloy 28) stainless steel
Y. Kchaou a,b,, N. Haddar a, G. Hnaff b, V. Pelosin b, K. Elleuch a
a
Laboratoire de Gnie des Matriaux et Environnement (LGME), ENIS, BPW 1173, Sfax, Tunisia
b
Institut Pprime, Dpartement Physique et Mcanique des Matriaux, UPR 3346 CNRS ISAE-ENSMA Universit de Poitiers, Tlport 2, 1, avenue Clment Ader, BP 40109,
F 86961 Futuroscope Chasseneuil Cedex, France

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Shielded Metal Arc Welding (SMAW) was performed on UNS N08028 (Alloy 28) superaustenitic stainless
Received 14 November 2013 steel sheets. In the present work, the microstructure and the mechanical properties of base metal (BM),
Accepted 6 June 2014 weld metal (WM), and welded joint (WJ) are investigated. Optical micrographs show that the base metal
Available online 17 June 2014
presents austenitic grains, and the weld metal exhibits a fully austenitic dendritic structure, conrming
the Schaefer diagram estimations. Microhardness measurements indicate that the hardness increases in
Keywords: the weld bead due to the rapid cooling and thermal cycle during welding procedure. The measured
Superaustenitic
mechanical properties and the analysis of the fracture proles show that the two materials are ductile
Microstructural
Dendritic
but the ductility is less pronounced in the weld metal. Consistently the yield stress, the plastic strength
Cyclic hardening and the impact toughness are lower than in the base metal. In addition, the BM presents a higher cyclic
hardening and plastic strain compared to those of WM. Cyclic stressstrain hysteresis loops show that
WM and WJ have almost the same cyclic behavior and especially at high imposed strain levels.
2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction properties of welded stainless steel as regards the different weld-

Austenitic stainless steels have found wide applications because
of their excellent mechanical and corrosion properties, and a rea-
sonable weldability [1,2]. The superaustenitic grades of stainless
steel, containing more than 20% of nickel and a high amount of
alloying elements as Mo provide an improved corrosion resistance
associated with a high strength level [3]. Some investigations have
already been carried out on mechanical properties of superausten-
itic stainless steels (SASS) such as tensile strength and impact
properties [4,5]. In particular, it has been found that the augmen-
tation of the strain rate does not affect the yield stress or tensile
strength, but it is benecial to the ductility [6].
The SASS are especially suitable for the manufacturing of piping
and a variety of other components in chemical, petrochemical and
nuclear industries. These piping systems require generally a weld-
ing of many components in order to assembly different equip-
ments of the structure and to make them resistant. Previous
studies have focused on investigating chemical and mechanical
Corresponding author. Tel.: +33 6 16 11 20 82; fax: +33 5 49 49 82 91.
E-mail address: yacine.kchaou@ensma.fr (Y. Kchaou).
ing processes.
In this framework, it has been found that CO2 laser welded
superaustenitic stainless steel AISI 904L exhibits a fully austenitic,
dendritic structure [7]. The studies of the solidication behavior of
laser welded 304 austenitic stainless steel have shown a cellular-
dendritic structure and a complete absence of (d) ferrite and micro-
segregation [8]. The microstructure of the AISI 304L ASS weld met-
als reveals that the ferrite content in the deposited metals raises
with an increasing of Cr/Ni ratio [9]. In addition, different welded
austenitic stainless steel microstructure of 302, 304, 316L, 310S
and 347 ASS are almost fully austenitic due to the rapid solidica-
tion rate [10]. These results show that the microstructure and the
mechanical properties of these steels are very dependent on the
preparation conditions. In addition the specic study of the inu-
ence of welded joint on the mechanical behavior of a steel pipe
under monotonic and cyclic loading [11] has shown that the max-
imum load carrying capacity is affected by the presence of residual
stresses in the welded joint.
In the present work, the investigations have been focused on
the microstructural and mechanical properties of SMAW welded
Alloy 28 (UNS N08028) which is a superaustenitic stainless steel
containing 2628% of Cr and 29.532.5% of Ni that gives to this

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2014.06.014
0261-3069/ 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 Y. Kchaou et al. / Materials and Design 63 (2014) 278285 279

material excellent anti-corrosion and mechanical properties [12]. Table 1

In order to optimize further applications as piping, the microstruc- Welding parameters for shielded metal arc welding process.

tural properties and their incidence on mechanical properties such Number of Filler metal Current Voltage Welding speed Heat input
as tensile strength, ductility, impact resistance and cyclic stress passes diameter (mm) (A) (V) (cm/min) (kJ/cm)
strain behavior have to be characterized. Thus, in the following, 1 2.5 60 26 24.6 3.8
both base metal (BM), weld metal (WM) and welded joint (WJ) 24 4 140 26 29.31 7.45
have been studied. 58 4 140 26 31.4 6.96
912 4 140 26 33.16 6.58
1315 4 140 26 32 6.81

2. Material and test procedures

Hot rolled superaustenitic stainless steels were welded using

Shielded Metal Arc Welding (SMAW). The welding procedure was
made on base metal sheets of Sanicro28 commercial ller metal.
This process can be used to weld a lot of various metals such as car-
bon steels, copper, brass and aluminum and it is the most used in
the stainless steel welding industry [13]. It is based on the arc force
which provides digging action for electrode penetration in the base
metal [14]. The steel sheet was rst prepared by chamfering and
grinding the edges in order to make an X form (Fig. 1). The indus-
trial welding parameters and the heat input in each block of the 15
welding passes are given in Table 1.
For metallographic examinations, several specimens were pre-
Fig. 2. Specimens details.
pared by grinding using 120, 240, 320, 600, 800, 1000, 2000 and
4000 grits of SiC paper, followed by the nal polishing with 3 lm
and 1 lm alumina powders. Then, the samples were etched using
an electrolytic etching in an aqueous solution of 10 wt.% oxalic acid
at 5 V for 20 s. The microstructure features were investigated using
an optical microscope and a scanning electron microscope (SEM)
equipped with energy dispersive spectroscopy (EDS) point analysis.
Microindentation Vickers hardness tests were performed at a
load of 300 mN using a microhardness Fischer HM T3 XY-prog
model. The measurements were carried out across the welds in
order to obtain the hardness prole of the welded joint. Tensile
tests were carried out at room temperature on base metal (BM)
and weld metal (WM) specimens using an axial servo-electric
Fig. 3. Welded joint specimen.
machine (Instron 1362 100 kN) with a load train and compact dig-
ital control electronics. For all tests, the applied strain rate was
103 s1 and the strain was measured using an extensometer with
a gauge length of 12.5 mm. Fatigue tests (or cyclic hardening tests)
were performed on a single specimen of each material (BM and
WM) at different imposed total strain amplitude levels with a
strain rate equal to 103 s1. Fatigue tests were performed follow-
ing the standard ASTM: E606/E606M-12 Standard Test Method for
Strain-Controlled Fatigue Testing. Fatigue tests were not conducted
until rupture of the specimen but until stabilization of the stress
strain hysteresis loop of each imposed strain level. After this stabil-
ization, the strain amplitude increases by 0.1% for the next step.
The samples, as shown in Fig. 2, have a cylindrical form with a
diameter of 4.3 mm and a length of 56 mm. Three types of speci- Fig. 4. Charpy impact tests specimen.
mens were used in this investigation: BM specimens were
machined in the rolling direction, WM were machined in the weld-
grit paper at different number in order to eliminate microcracks
ing direction and WJ specimens which contain a weld nugget in its
and surface defects obtained after machining.
center as showed in Fig. 3. These specimens were grinded by SiC
The charpy V-notch impact tests were conducted on WM and
BM at room temperature with the standard 55 mm  10 mm 
10 mm sample dimensions. The specimens were machined per-
pendicular to the welding direction with the notch in the center
of the weld metal as presented in Fig. 4.

3. Result and discussion

3.1. Chemical and microstructural investigation

The chemical composition of the BM and the WM were identi-

Fig. 1. Multipass schematic. ed using EDS X-ray analysis as shown in Table 2.
280 Y. Kchaou et al. / Materials and Design 63 (2014) 278285

Table 2
Chemical composition of base metal (BM) and weld metal (WM).

Element (wt.%) Fe Ni Cr Mo Si
BM 36.4 31.95 28 3.41 0.22
WM 35.85 33.36 27 3.14 0.64

As expected, the composition of the two materials BM and WM

(Sanicro) provided from the industrial supplier is nearly similar,
especially Cr and Ni contents. In fact, Cr, Si and Mo are alphagenic
elements; they favor the presence of the ferritic phase. It is there-
fore necessary to introduce a gammagenic element such as Ni to
allow the desired austenite structure to form at annealing temper-
atures (typically at 10001100 C), and to persist to room temper-
Fig. 7. Shaefer diagram [8].
ature. Expressions giving the chromium and nickel equivalents are
presented in this paper [15]. Optical micrographs of the BM and the
fusion zone are showed in Fig. 5(a) and (b). The microstructure is
Moreover, the welding of austenitic stainless steel can contain a
fully austenitic as it does not appear to be any delta ferrite or car-
few amount of ferrite that can be hardly discernible by micrograph
bide precipitates. The microstructure consists of equiaxed grains
analysis. Thus, for the estimation of ferrite contents in stainless
and many twins can be observed in the austenitic matrix. The
steel weld metal, the Shaefer diagram [17] and the Delong dia-
grains are randomly oriented with sizes range between 100 lm
gram [18], depicting isoferrite content maps, are commonly used.
and 200 lm. The micrographic examination shows that the exten-
In this perspective, various welded austenitic stainless steels
sion of the heat affected zone (HAZ) is extremely thin (Fig. 5(b))
(302, 304, 310S, 316L and 347) have been studied [9] and a notable
excluding any grain growth. The absence of the HAZ is due to the
difference in the term of ferrite contents estimated by Schaefer
important cooling rates resulting from the highly heating source
diagram has been evidenced. In the 310S welded austenitic stain-
produced during welding procedure near the fusion line [10].
less steel, there is no ferrite as the Creq and Nieq are equal to
Fig. 6(a) and (b) shows that the microstructure of the weld
25.89% and 20.8% respectively. On the contrary, in 347 and 304
stainless steel is fully dendritic. A similar dendritic microstructure
austenitic stainless steel, the amount of ferrite is estimated at 6
has already been observed on a welded 904L superaustenitic stain-
7%. This difference is clearly due to the chemical composition in
less steel [7]. In the present case, a columnar structure is observed
terms of alphagenic and gammagenic elements.
in the region adjacent to the fusion boundary (Fig. 5(b)), while the
In our case, considering the Shaefer diagram (Fig. 7), we have
equiaxed microstructure prevails when approaching the weld cen-
calculated Creq and Nieq using the following Eqs. (1) and (2) [8]:
ter. Janaki Ram et al. [16] have found the same structure in welded
superalloy Inconel 718. Creq %Cr %Mo 1:5  %Si 0:5  %Nb 1

Fig. 5. Optical micrographs of (a) base metal and (b) fusion line.

Fig. 6. Optical micrographs of (a) weld metal in the center of the welding and (b) weld metal near the fusion line.
 Y. Kchaou et al. / Materials and Design 63 (2014) 278285 281

Fig. 9. Tensile curves of BM and WM at room temperature, strain rate = 103 s1.

Fig. 8. Microhardness prole of the welded Alloy 28.

Table 3
Nieq %Ni 0:5  %Mn 30  %C 2 Tensile properties of BM and WM.

In the WM, taking into account the chemical composition anal- Youngs Yield Tensile Striction Elongation Kcv
ysis (Table 2), the calculated Creq and Nieq are equal to 31.1% and modulus E stress Re strength Z% A% (J)
(GPa) (MPa) Rm (MPa)
33.36% respectively. Therefore, from the Shaefer diagram we can
deduce that the microstructure of the weld metal is fully BM 180 300 627 62 15.2 >300
WM 157 450 682 41 7.5 100
austenitic.

3.2. Hardness measurements

The microhardness prole across the weld bead is shown in
Fig. 8. It can be noted that, even if the measured values are quite
scattered, the hardness value of weld metal reaches 330 HV at
the middle of the welding then decreases unto 220 HV in the base
metal. The higher level of the microhardness in WM can be at least
partly explained by the microstructural renement due to the
rapid cooling of the weld metal as shown in Fig. 6.
3.3. Tensile tests
Uniaxial tensile tests were performed on BM and WM respec-
tively at room temperature. The tensile curves of each material
are showed in Fig. 9. The tensile properties of BM and WM are
summarized in Table 3. Both BM and WM exhibit a ductile behav-
ior but the specic mechanical properties are different. Indeed, it
can be found that yield stress and tensile strength of WM are
higher than BM. Meanwhile the elongation of BM is also much
higher than WM (A% = 15.2% and 7.5% respectively) which can be
conrmed by the necking coefcient value (Z% = 62% and 41%
respectively). The large difference between the yield stress and
ultimate strength in the case of BM (340 and 627 MPa
respectively) underlines the ability of this material to undergo a
signicant amount of work hardening during monotonic deforma-
tion. These results are in good agreement with previous studies

Fig. 10. SEM micrographs of tensile fracture surface of BM; (a) whole surface (b) zoom on the left zone and (c) zoom on the right zone.
282 Y. Kchaou et al. / Materials and Design 63 (2014) 278285
Fig. 11. SEM micrographs of tensile fracture surface of WM; (a) whole surface (b) and (c) surface morphology at different magnitudes.
Fig. 12. Fracture behavior of BM and WM Charpy specimens.
realized on mechanical properties of austenitic stainless steels
welded by different process [19]. The difference of monotonic
behavior between BM and WM was also observed in the results
of Magnier-Monin [20]. They found also that WM have a higher
yield stress compared to BM with a difference of 100 MPa. Figs. 10
and 11 show SEM observations of the fracture surfaces of base
metal and weld metal respectively. The fractographs of BM
(Fig. 10(b) and (c)) evidence the presence of many microvoids with
different size oriented in the fracture direction. Concerning the
WM, we can also observe a dimpled structure. Finally, the fracto-
graphs of both base and weld metal are clearly characteristic of a
ductile rupture mode, but the ductile nature is more pronounced
in the case of BM.
3.4. Impact tests
Charpy V notch impact tests were carried out to evaluate the
toughness of base metal and weld metal at room temperature.
Because the HAZ is almost inexistent near the weld metal, no
attempt is made to assess the impact toughness of the fusion line.
It was found that the toughness (Kcv) of the base metal is higher
than 300 J, while in the weld metal it only reaches 100 J. Fig. 12
shows Charpy specimens after rupture. It can be seen that BM is
not broken because the rupture energy exceeds the capacity of
the machine. So, BM is more ductile than WM which present a duc-
tile fracture less pronounced than BM.
The lower value of toughness of WM may be accounted for by
the presence of Mo (3.16% in the present welded Alloy 28) which
contributes, considering a rapid cooling, to the hardness of mate-
rial. Indeed, previous studies [19] have shown that the fracture
energy of welded 316L presents higher value compared to that of
304L because of the presence of 2.6% of Mo in the 316L. In addition,
it is established that in austenitic stainless steels, various addition
elements as mixed Fe, Cr, Mn and Nb carbonitride [21] can precip-
itate with rapid cooling treatments thus hardening of the material.
In order to investigate this point, SEM observations of fracture sur-
face were carried out. Fig. 13 shows SEM micrographs of fracture
surface of weld metal and the global appearance is similar to the
one already observed on the fracture surface after tensile test
(Fig. 11). A ductile mode of fracture is evidenced by the presence
of dimples. Ramazan Kaar and Orhan Baylan [22] have found
the same fracture mode with the same approximately impact
energy at room temperature for an austenitic stainless steel weld-
ment. In addition, in the Fig. 13(c), many globular particles which
are characteristic of a brittle phase are observed. The EDS analysis
of these globular particles has shown the presence of a high con-
tent of chromium (more than 50%) followed by Si (around 20%);
 Y. Kchaou et al. / Materials and Design 63 (2014) 278285
Fig. 13. SEM fracture surface of Charpy impact test specimen (a) general micrograph, (b) surface morphology and (c) dimple structure.
Fig. 14. Extensometer position in the welded joint specimen.
Fe and Ti are also represented by a few percent (around 7%). From
these results we can conclude that the brittle phase is mainly con-
stituted of Cr which precipitates during the welding process as it
includes Ti, an element providing from the shielding of the
electrode.
3.5. Cyclic stressstrain tests
Cyclic hardening tests were carried out in order to characterize
the cyclic stress strain behavior of BM, WM and WJ. In the case of
WJ tests, the extensometer knifes were xed in the center of the
specimen in order to obtain the response of the welded joint as
shown in Fig. 14. Typical stabilized hysteresis loops obtained at
the end of each block of imposed total strain amplitude loading
(strain rate of 103 s1) are shown in Fig. 15 for base metal, weld
metal and welded joint respectively. It can be seen that the shape
of the hysteresis loop is different between BM and WM, but a
similarity is observed between WM and WJ. To visualize this
difference, stabilized stressstrain loops of the three specimen
283
congurations are reproduced for the same imposed strain level
(0.4% and 1% respectively) in Fig. 16. It is clear that the cyclic
behavior of BM and WM is not the same. However, BM presents
a higher plastic strain compared to WM for the same imposed
strain level. In addition, the stress amplitude is higher for WM than
BM for the same imposed strain level. For example, when the
imposed strain reaches 0.4%, the stress achieves its maximum to
attain 315 MPa for BM and 500 MPa for WM. When the imposed
strain reaches 1%, the stress achieves its maximum to attain
406 MPa for BM and 530 MPa for WM. So, it can be concluded that
WM is harder than BM, and this result correlates with the tensile
one which present a higher stress value for WM specimen.
Concerning the cyclic behavior of the WJ, it can be seen a similarity
with WM stressstrain hysteresis loop in terms of plastic strain
and stress amplitude. This similarity is more pronounced for the
higher imposed strain level (1%). Nevertheless, by increasing the
imposed strain (1%), the difference between the two hysteresis
loops is less pronounced.
Previous studies investigated the cyclic behavior of different
austenitic stainless steel. It was found that the cyclic behavior of
Alloy 28 is the same than 316(N) austenitic stainless steel and
especially at 0.4% of total imposed strain [23]. Yazid Madi and al.
[24] investigated the low cycle fatigue of welded joint of a 316L
austenitic stainless steel. They found that the cyclic behavior of
welded joint is different than base metal. They found also that
stress amplitude is higher in the case of WJ compared to BM. Once
again, we can note that BM presents a higher plastic character than
WM, and in terms of mean stress, BM and WM present notable dif-
ferences. The monotonic and cyclic stressstrain curves have been
compared on the same gure, Fig. 17(a) and (b) for BM and WM,
respectively. It appears that the cyclic strain hardening of BM is
much higher than WM which does not present any noticeable cyc-
lic hardening. Previous studies compared the cyclic and monotonic
behavior of 316L austenitic stainless steel and its welded joint [24].
They found that BM presents cyclic hardening contrary to WM
which presents a slight softening. These results are correlated with
results obtained in this paper.
The difference of monotonic and cyclic behavior between BM
and WM is due probably to the difference of microstructure and
rigidity between the two materials. We can conclude from the
284 Y. Kchaou et al. / Materials and Design 63 (2014) 278285

Fig. 15. Stress strain curves of (a) BM, (b) WM and (c) WJ.

Fig. 16. Superposed stressstrain hysteresis loop of BM, WM and WJ at two different stain level (a) 0.4% and (b) 1%.

cyclic stressstrain hysteresis loop of WM and WJ that the exten- obtained represent qualitative information for a mechanical local
someter measures the deformation of the weld metal and the behavior study of the welded joint specimen and they can be useful
behavior thus recorded is that of the weld metal which is explained to characterize fatigue properties of weld metal using specimens
by the similarity of cyclic behavior between them. So, the results with welded joint in its center.
 Y. Kchaou et al. / Materials and Design 63 (2014) 278285
Fig. 17. Monotonic and cyclic stressstrain curve, (a) BM and (b) WM.
4. Conclusions
The investigation of the microstructural and mechanical prop-
erties of a SWAW welded superaustenitic Alloy 28 stainless steel
enables the following conclusions:
 Concerning the microstructure analysis, austenitic grains with
the presence of twins are evidenced in the base metal. In the
weld metal, a ne dendritic structure that transforms from
columnar to equiaxed from the fusion line to the center of the
welded bead is observed.
 The fracture surfaces observed after tensile tests or impact tests
reveal a ductile rupture. In addition, in the weld metal, the dim-
ples are much ner and it has been evidenced the presence of a
brittle phase.
 Concerning the mechanical properties, all the tests performed,
microhardness, tensile strength, yield stress, plastic and impact
toughness, are in good agreement and shown that even if BM
and WM present a ductile mode of rupture, the ductility of
BM is more pronounced.
 From cyclic stress strain loops, it can be seen that BM presents a
higher plastic strain (ep) compared to WM at the same imposed
strain level. In addition, BM presents a higher cyclic hardening
than WM which can be explained by the presence of several
metallurgical defects such as twins.
 Cyclic behavior of welded joint specimen is similar to this of
weld metal in terms of plastic strain and stress amplitude at
the same imposed stain level.
 Then, it can be concluded that in welded Alloy 28, as in many
SASS, the microstructure resulting from the welding process,
namely a ne dendritic structure, the induced grain renement
and probably some additional precipitation are responsible of
the higher strength level.
References
[1] Lula RA, Parr JG, Hanson A. Stainless Steel. OH, Metals Park: American Society
for Metals (ASM); 1986. 60.
[2] Talyan V, Wagoner RH, Lee JK. Formability of stainless. Metall Mater Trans A
1998;29A:2161.
[3] Al-Malahy KSE, Hodgkiess T. Comparative studies of the seawater corrosion
behaviour of a range of materials. Desalination 2003;158:3542.
285
[4] Mohandas T, Reddy GM, Naveed M. A comparative evaluation of gas tungsten
and shielded metal arc welds of a ferritic stainless steel. J Mater Process
Technol 1999;94:13340.
[5] Suzuki T, Kohyama A, Hirose T, Narui M. Evaluation of weld crack susceptibility
for neutron irradiated stainless steels. J Nucl Mater 1999;271272. 179183.
[6] Chia-Chang Wu, Wang Shing-Hoa, Chen Chih-Yuan, Yang Jer-Ren, Chiu Po-Kay,
Fang Jason. Inverse effect of strain rate on mechanical behavior and phase
transformation of superaustenitic stainless steel. Scr Mater 2007;56:71720.
[7] Molian PA. Solidication behaviour of laser welded stainless steel. J Mater Sci
Lett 1985;4:2813.
[8] Lee DJ, Byun JC, Sunga JH, Lee HW. The dependence of crack properties on the
Cr/Ni equivalent ratio in AISI 304L austenitic stainless steel weld metals. Mater
Sci Eng A 2009;513514. 154159.
[9] Fukotomo Shinji, Fujiwara Kana, Yamamoto Atsushi. Small-scale resistance
spot welding of austenitic stainless steel. Mater Sci Eng 2008;A492:2439.
[10] Changa Hyong-Ho, Jangb Gab-Chul, Shinc Young-Eui, Hana Jung-Guen, Kimc
Jong-Min. The behavior of welded joint in steel pipe members under
monotonic and cyclic loading. Int J Press Vessels Pip 2006;83:84652.
[11] Zambon A, Ferro P, Bonollo F. Microstructural, compositional and residual
stress evaluation of CO2 laser welded superaustenitic AISI 904L stainless steel.
Mater Sci Eng A 2006;424:11727.
[12] Lo KH, Shek CH, Lai JKL. Recent developments in stainless steels. Mater Sci Eng
R 2009;65:39104.
[13] Folkhard E. Welding metallurgy of stainless steels. New York: Spring-Verlag
Wien; 1984.
[14] Goel Vivek, Liao Warren, Lee Kwan S. A shielded metal arc welding expert
system. Comput Ind 1993;21:1219.
[15] Kurc-Lisiecka A, Kciuk M. The inuence of chemical composition on structure
and mechanical properties of austenitic CrNi steels. J Achiev Mater Manuf
Eng 2013;61(2):2105.
[16] Janaki Ram GD, Venugopal Reddy A, Prasad Rao K, Reddy GM, Sarin Sundar JK.
Microstructure and tensile properties of Inconel 718 pulsed Nd-YAG laser
welds. J Mater Process Technol 2005;167:7382.
[17] Schaefer AL. Constitution diagram for stainless steel wed metal. Metal Prog
1949;56:680.
[18] Long CJ, DeLong WT. The ferrite content of austenitic stainless steel weld
metal. Welding J 1973;52:281s97s.
[19] Yilmaz Ramazan, Uzun Hseyin. Mechanical properties of austenitic stainless
steels welded by GMAW and GTAW. J Marmara Pure Appl Sci 2002;18:97113.
[20] Laure Magnier-Monin. Tenue en service dassemblages souds en acier 304L:
inuence des contraintes rsiduelles et du parachvement mcanique, Thesis
in french. Ecole des Mines de Douai. 2007.
[21] Vareda LV, Spinelli D. Fatigue, monotonic and fracture toughness properties of
a CrMnN steel. Int J Fatigue 2001;23:85763.
[22] Kaar Ramazan, Baylan Orhan. An investigation of microstructure/property
relationships in dissimilar welds between martensitic and austenitic stainless
steels. Mater Des 2004;25:31729.
[23] Samir Chandra Roya, Sunil Goyalb, Sandhyab R, Raya SK. Low cycle fatigue life
prediction of 316L(N) stainless steel based on cyclic elasto-plastic response.
Nucl Eng Des 2012;253:21925.
[24] Madi Yazid, Matheron Philippe, Recho Naman, Mongabur Philippe. Low cycle
fatigue of welded joints: new experimental approach. Nucl Eng Des
2004;228:16177.