Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 10

An Investigation of Weld Hot Cracking in

Duplex Stainless Steels

Cracking susceptibility in commercial grades is linked to a

Cu- and P-enriched, low-melting liquid film


ABSTRACT. The weld fusion zone hot of these complex synergistic alloying ele- tance to pitting, crevice corrosion, and
cracking behavior of four duplex stainless ment effects. stress-corrosion cracking (Refs. 1-4). The
steel alloys was investigated using the Fractographic study of the hot crack increase in ferrite-stabilizing elements (Cr,
Varestraint test. The duplex stainless surfaces in the duplex alloys showed Mo) relative to austenite-stabilizing ele-
steels evaluated included: Ferralium Alloy both dendritic and flat columnar topo- ments (Ni, N) in these alloys results in a
255 (UNS-S32550), Uddeholm NU744LN graphies. The flat regions, which were microstructure which is "duplex" in
(UNS-S31803), and two experimental Fe- found at locations on the fracture surface nature, containing both ferrite and aus-
Cr-Ni alloys. Two commercial Type 304L farthest from the crack front at the time tenite. Duplex stainless steel base
alloys were included in the study for of straining, have been attributed to grain materials are normally solution heat
comparison. boundary formation and migration during treated at a temperature which produces
Varestraint test results indicated that and immediately subsequent to the final nearly equal proportions of ferrite and
the commercial duplex stainless steels stages of fusion zone solidification. It is austenite.
were more susceptible to fusion zone hot postulated that the incidence of flat frac- The unique properties of the duplex
cracking than the experimental alloys and ture is related to the greater susceptibility stainless steels have resulted in their use
a Type 304L alloy which exhibited Ferrite of the duplex alloys to weld solidification in a variety of industrial applications,
Number (FN) 4.5 in the weld fusion zone. cracking versus the FN 4.5 Type 304L including chemical process plant piping,
All of the duplex alloys were less suscep- alloy, which exhibited an exclusively den- oil and gas transmission lines, and struc-
tible to hot cracking than the Type 304L dritic surface. tures for use in marine environments
alloy, which solidified as austenite and (Refs. 5, 6). Since welding is widely used
exhibited a ferrite-free fusion zone micro- in the fabrication of many components
structure. Introduction and Background used in these applications, understanding
Metallographic inspection of Vare- the factors which affect the weldability of
The duplex stainless steels have been
straint specimens revealed that fusion duplex stainless steels is critical to the
developed to provide a higher strength,
zone hot cracking in the duplex alloys successful implementation of these engi-
corrosion-resistant alternative to the 300-
was associated with grain boundaries neering materials.
series austenitic stainless steels. Relative
which had been fully ferritic during the
to the conventional Type 304L and 316L
final stages of solidification. Microprobe Weld Hot Cracking
alloys, the duplex stainless steels typically
analysis of the remnants of liquid films
contain increased chromium (22-26 wt- Weld hot cracking, or solidification
along the crack paths in the commercial
%), decreased nickel (4-8 wt-%), cracking, generally occurs slightly above
alloys revealed increased levels of cop-
increased molybdenum (2-5 wt-%), the melting temperature of the lowest
per, molybdenum, nickel and phospho-
increased nitrogen (0.1-0.2 wt-%), and melting constituent, sometimes referred
rus. It is suggested that the partitioning of
occasional additions of copper. These to as the effective solidus temperature
copper and phosphorus to the ferritic
alloy modifications impart excellent resis- (Refs. 7, 8). At this point in the weld
solidification boundaries promoted the
formation of complex low-melting liquid solidification process, adjacent dendrites
films which readily wet the single-phase have impinged upon each other to form
boundaries. The lower hot cracking sus- solidified bridges, which are surrounded
ceptibility of the experimental duplex KEY W O R D S by regions containing lower-melting inter-
alloys appears to be due to the absence dendritic liquid. These solid bridges are
Duplex Stainless Stl subject to the greatest proportion of
Weld Hot Cracking shrinkage-induced strain as the surround-
D. E NELSON is with Hughes Aircraft Co., El Crack Susceptibility ing material cools. A threshold amount of
Segundo, Calif. W. A. BAESLACK III is with the Zone Solidification either low-melting liquid or strain may
Department of Welding Engineering, Ohio Element Segregation cause fracture of these solid bridges and
State University, Columbus, Ohio. J. C. LIP- Varestraint Testing the subsequent formation of a weld hot
POLD is with the Edison Welding Institute, Alloy UNS-S32550 crack (Refs. 9-12). By definition, weld hot
Columbus, Ohio. Alloy UNS-S31803 cracks are interdendritic in nature, occur-
Fe-Cr-Ni Alloys ring either between individual dendrites
Based on a paper presented at the 66th Annual
A WS Meeting, held April 28 to May 3, 1985, in Microprobe Analysis or, more commonly, along a weld "grain
Las Vegas, Nev. boundary," where dendrites of different


decreased. A further increase in this ratio,
S which resulted in welds containing more
than 30 vol-% ferrite, again resulted in an
increase in cracking. Suutala, et al. (Refs.
20, 26, 27), suggested that this increase in
A< cracking results from a shift in solidifica-
tion behavior during the final stages of
freezing. Below approximately 30 vol-%
'Ei ferrite, some austenite forms at the inter-
stices of the primary ferrite dendrites as a
secondary solidification product. The
presence of austenite during the final
stages of solidification inhibits interden-
dritic wetting and reduces crack suscepti-
bility, as proposed by Hull (Ref. 15). In
welds which exhibit more than 30 vol-%
ferrite, solidification is entirely ferritic, and
interdendritic liquid films are more likely
to wet the ferrite-ferrite boundaries.
Despite the metallurgical rationale
which suggests increased hot cracking
susceptibility of the duplex stainless steels
relative to austenitic stainless steels, only
a few instances of weld hot cracking in
5 0 ;,.m these materials have been reported (Refs.
Fig 1-Base metal microstructures of the duplex stainless steels. A-Ferralium Alloy 255; 28-30). Gooch (Ref. 29) observed crack-
B - Uddeholm NU744LN; C - Alloy 21-9; D- Alloy 23-7. The ferrite (F) and austenite (A) phases areing only when welding plate thicknesses
indicated were above 10 mm (0.4 in.). Blumfield, et
al. (Ref. 28), and Flasche (Ref. 30) have
growth orientation impinge. The thresh- Duplex Stainless Steels reported only minor difficulties with hot
old level of both strain and interdendritic
Weld hot cracking in the duplex stain- cracking in Ferralium Alloy 255. The
liquid necessary to cause cracking is apparent discrepancy in hot cracking
less steels has received considerably less
material specific and depends to a large behavior predicted by laboratory results
attention. These alloys solidify as ferrite
extent on both the composition of the and that actually encountered during field
and may exhibit from 20 to 80 vol-%
material and the welding conditions. fabrication is puzzling in light of the good
ferrite in the as-welded microstructure.
Based on the correlation between crack- correlation obtained with the austenitic
Austenitic Stainless Steels stainless steels.
ing susceptibility and solidification behav-
Weld hot cracking of the austenitic ior developed for the austenitic stainless This investigation was designed to
stainless steels has been the subject of steels, the susceptibility of the duplex evaluate the relative hot cracking suscep-
considerable research interest over the alloys to hot cracking would be expected tibility of four duplex and t w o austenitic
past 30 years. The beneficial effect of to be low. stainless steel alloys and relate the
delta ferrite was first recognized in the In fact, Hull (Ref. 15) reported that hot observed hot cracking behavior to the
1940's and has since been substantiated cracking in small cast ingots of austenitic solidification behavior of the individual
by many investigators (Refs. 13-24). Early stainless steels increased as the ferrite alloys.
studies by Borland (Ref. 14) and Hull (Ref. content of the as-solidified ingot
15) demonstrated that austenitic stainless increased above 10 vol-%. He proposed
steel welds and castings which contained that the optimum cracking resistance of Material and
between 5 and 10 vol-% delta ferrite the castings containing 5 to 10% ferrite Experimental Procedure
provided optimum resistance to hot resulted from the presence of significant
cracking in a variety of alloy systems. austenite-ferrite interfacial area during Materials
Since these initial observations, additional the final stages of solidification. The low The duplex stainless steels which were
studies have investigated the metallurgi- interfacial energy of these two-phase studied included: Ferralium Alloy 255
cal basis accounting for the beneficial boundaries inhibits boundary wetting by (UNS-S32550), a nitrogen-bearing steel
effect of weld metal ferrite. Masumoto, low-melting liquid films, thus reducing the with approximately 26Cr-5Ni-2Cu-
etal. (Ref. 17), first reported the influence propensity for separation (cracking) along 3.3Mo; Uddeholm NU744LN (UNS-
of solidification behavior on cracking sus- these boundaries. He further postulated S31803), a nitrogen-bearing steel contain-
ceptibility. They found that alloys whose that like-phase boundaries, such as aus- ing approximately 22Cr-6Ni-3Mo; and
primary solidification product was ferrite tenite-austenite or ferrite-ferrite grain or t w o experimental alloys, designated as
were much more resistant to hot cracking subgrain boundaries, would be more sus- 21-9 and 23-7, which were simple alloys
than alloys whose primary solidification ceptible to cracking due to more exten- of the Fe-Cr-Ni system, containing
product was austenite. The presence of sive wetting by liquid films. approximately 21Cr-9Ni-2Mn and 23Cr-
at least 5 vol-% ferrite in the as-welded Suutala, et al. (Refs. 20, 26, 27), 7Ni-2Mn, respectively. All material was in
microstructure was merely an indication observed that the cracking susceptibility the form of plate which had been solu-
that weld solidification occurred as pri- in a wide range of stainless steels could tion-annealed at 1020°-1100°C (1870°-
mary ferrite. Austenitic stainless steel be correlated with a Cr e q/Ni e q ratio. At 2010°F), followed by rapid cooling in air
welds which were either fully austenitic low ratio values, primary solidification or water.
or contained only a small amount of occurred as austenite and cracking sus- The as-received base metal microstruc-
ferrite ( < 2 vol-%) generally solidified as ceptibility was high. Above a threshold tures for the four duplex stainless steel
primary austenite and were susceptible value of Cr e q /Ni e q , primary solidification alloys studied are illustrated in Fig. 1.
to hot cracking (Refs. 18, 20, 22-26). shifted to ferrite and cracking propensity Ferralium Alloy 255, Uddeholm NU744LN

242-s | AUGUST 1987

with an energy dispersive spectrometer
Table 1—Compositions for the Alloys Investigated (wt-%)
(EDS) in order to characterize the fracture
morphology and identify particles or
Materials Cr Ni Si Mn Mo Cu C N S
phases which were associated with the
Ferralium Alloy 24.9 5.4 0.54 1.1 3.1 1.7 0.027 0.17 0.001 0.023 hot crack surface.
Uddeholm 21.6 4.9 0.44 1.7 2.4 0.2 0.067 0.10 0.001 0.024 Analytical Evaluation
Alloy 21-9 20.8 9.0 0.62 1.7 0.07 0.024 0.007 0.008 0.025 An electron microprobe was used to
Alloy 23-7 22.8 7.1 0.54 1.8 0.06 0.033 0.006 0.009 0.027 determine the degree of solute segrega-
304E (FN 0) 18.3 11.4 0.41 1.7 0.04 0.023 0.037 0.002 0.007 tion associated with solidification and hot
304t (FN 4.5) 18.6 10.7 0.54 1.9 0.21 0.017 0.040 0.001 0.024 cracking in the commercial duplex alloys.
The analyses were performed at an
accelerating voltage of 25 kV and a beam
the following equation: current of 10 nA, producing an effective
Table 2—Mini-Varestraint Test Parameters
probe size of approximately 1 ^ m
£ « t/2R
(0.00004 in.).
Current 180 ± 10 A where t is the specimen thickness and R is Hot crack surface analysis was also
Voltage 17 ± 1 V the radius of the die block over which the performed on the commercial alloys,
Travel speed 152 m m / m i n (6 ipm) specimen is deformed. using a scanning Auger microprobe
Electrode-to-work 2.38 mm (3/32 in.) Following testing, the specimens were (SAM). An accelerating voltage of 5 kV
distance chemically cleaned using an alkaline per- and a beam current of 1.85 ^A were used
Electrode W . T h 0 2 , 60-deg manganate-citrate acid method (Ref. 32) to examine the surface. Composition
included angle to remove high-temperature oxides depth profiles were obtained to a depth
Electrode diameter 2.38 mm (3/32 in.)
which made observation of hot cracks of 100 nm by sputtering the surface with
Ram velocity 300 m m / s (11.7 in./s)
difficult. The samples were first immersed a beam of argon ions.
Shielding gas Argon
Flow rate (Torch) 0.29 L/s (40 cfh)
for 1 h in a boiling solution containing
Flow rate (Trail) 0.53 L/s (70 cfh) 10% NaOH and 3% KMnCX, in 1 L of
water. After rinsing in water, the samples Results
were immersed for 1 h in a boiling Predicted Solidification and
and the 23-9 alloy all exhibited approxi- solution containing 12 g ammonium Transformation Behavior
mately equal proportions of austenite citrate, 100 mg EDTA, and 1 L of water, in
and ferrite, while the 21-9 alloy contained which the pH was adjusted to 4-4.5 with The solidification and solid-state phase
a greater proportion of austenite. Also citric acid. This cleaning method effec- transformation behavior of austenitic and
evident from Fig. 1 is the elongated tively removed the oxide without attack- duplex stainless steels is a strong function
morphology of the ferrite. The austenite ing the underlying metal. A quantitative of the composition of the particular steel.
phase, which formed at ferrite-ferrite measure of the extent of hot cracking in Since the duplex stainless steels are basi-
grain boundaries, was also elongated, each sample was determined using a cally high-Cr, low-Ni versions of the aus-
with the exception of the 21-9 alloy, in binocular microscope equipped with a tenitic stainless steels, the Fe-Cr-Ni terna-
which an equiaxed austenite grain struc- filar eyepiece. The number and length of ry system is useful for predicting the
ture was observed. all cracks produced along the trailing solidification and solid-state transforma-
A conventional Type 304L stainless edge of the weld pool during the mini- tion characteristics of these materials. The
steel which contained approximately 5 Varestraint test were determined at 70X pseudo-binary section of the Fe-Cr-Ni
vol-% (FN 4.5) delta ferrite in the weld magnification. ternary system at 60 wt-% iron (Ref. 33),
fusion zone at room temperature and a shown in Fig. 2, can be used to describe
Type 304L stainless steel which remained the behavior of a typical duplex stainless
fully austenitic in the weld fusion zone Metallography steel upon cooling from the solidification
were also tested in order to provide a range. A nominal composition, C 0 , at
Selected mini-Varestraint test speci-
baseline for comparison of the hot crack- 30Cr-10Ni, has been selected as repre-
mens were sectioned, mounted, and pol-
ing susceptibilities of the duplex stainless sentative, since the majority of commer-
ished with 0.05 micron alumina for metal-
steels. Complete compositional analyses cial alloys contain molybdenum and nitro-
lographic analysis. Sections were made
for all the alloys tested are shown in gen additions which increase their "effec-
through the cracked regions of the test
Table 1. tive" chromium and nickel contents (Cr-
specimens to reveal the hot crack mor-
and Ni-equivalents), respectively.
phology and in unstrained areas for a
Varestraint Testing more detailed examination of the weld Alloys which lie to the right of the
fusion and heat-affected zone structures. triangular, three-phase region at approxi-
The mini-Varestraint test (Ref. 31) was Samples were etched using either a mately 25Cr-15Ni in Fig. 2 solidify as
utilized to assess the relative weld hot mixed acid reagent containing equal primary ferrite. Alloys which solidify as
cracking susceptibility of the duplex and amounts of nitric, hydrochloric, and ace- ferrite in close proximity to this three-
austenitic alloys. As-received 12.8-mm tic acid or a 10% oxalic acid electrolytic phase region may form some austenite
(0.5-in.) thick plates were machined into etch at 6 V for 10-20 s. during the final stages of solidification, as
test specimens with dimensions of a consequence of a peritectic/eutectic
0 . 6 4 X 2 . 5 4 X 1 5 . 2 4 cm (0.25 X 1.0 X reaction (Refs. 21, 23). As the composi-
6.0 in.). The specimens were thoroughly tion is enriched in chromium and de-
degreased with acetone and wiped dry Selected Ferralium Alloy 255 and pleted in nickel at a constant iron content,
immediately prior to testing. The GTA Uddeholm NU744LN test samples con- this reaction becomes less favorable and
welding parameters used in mini-Vares- taining hot cracks were carefully sec- solidification is completely ferritic. Thus,
traint testing are listed in Table 2. tioned and broken in order to reveal hot Fig. 2 predicts that duplex stainless steels
The specimens were tested over a crack fracture surfaces. The fracture sur- will solidify as primary ferrite with little or
range of augmented strains from 0.5 to faces were examined using a scanning no austenite forming as a secondary
5%. The augmented strain, £, is given by electron microscope (SEM) equipped solidification product.


1600 Following solidification, a duplex stain-
less steel of composition C 0 enters the
LIQUID single-phase ferrite region of the phase
diagram. Within this region, diffusion is
2600 rapid, and much of the elemental parti-
1400 tioning resulting from solidification may
Y+L be reduced, depending primarily on the
rate of cooling through this region. Upon
further cooling, the alloy enters the aus-
2200 tenite plus ferrite phase field and a grad-
ual transformation of ferrite to austenite
occurs. The austenite will form preferen-
3 tially at defect structures in the ferrite,
e e.g., grain and solidification substructure
3 1000 boundaries, which may be enriched in
elements which stabilize austenite (Ni,
Mn, Cu, N, C). Note that, unlike the
hi UJ austenitic stainless steels, a typical duplex
a. o. stainless steel remains within the bounds
•00 of the austenite plus ferrite region to
1400 room temperature. As a result, the fusion
zone of these alloys would be expected
to contain a large fraction of ferrite in the
room-temperature microstructure.
IOOO The pseudo-binary diagram in Fig. 2
can also be used to explain the effect of
the solution-annealing temperature on
6 0 % IRON the microstructure and phase composi-
400 • tion of the duplex stainless steel base
materials. Solution annealing an alloy of
15 20 25 30 35 40 WT % Cr composition C 0 in the temperature range
from 1020° to 1100°C results in an equi-
25 20 15 10 5 0 W T % Ni librium mixture containing nearly equal
Fig. 2 — Vertical section of the Fe-Cr-Ni phase diagram at 60% iron. The CD composition line proportions of ferrite and austenite. The
represents a typical duplex stainless steel (Ref. 32) composition of these phases would be
roughly approximated by the austenite
and ferrite solvus lines at the solution-
annealing temperature. Since the width
of the two-phase region is large, a signif-
icant difference in composition should
exist between the ferrite and the austen-
ite. (This assumes that the alloy is held at
;/- -'.'' f
i'r,Ay" ,. y.-
:7S •y-yy;;- %
the solution-annealing temperature long
enough to achieve equilibrium and that
i.-y the isothermal tie line lies in the plane of
- y i "-vc* s"A
W' J /
-' the 60% iron section.)
,• '.»$£
y.<C&U / yV,'^ j J~A' / ' %
'}. , / - • • fy W e l d Microstructures
/ ^ - 7 ^ -y # -'-'- * >J J'J ' ) *- •"'• I 7.
-A - 1~
- <~ \ '' ii%
' f 7i~y' • A-. :The weld fusion zone and fusion

:rs 'A': -t

*X# boundary region microstructures of the
duplex stainless steels evaluated during
50um i
"• *y.~

, •} ••
this investigation are shown in Fig. 3.
These microstructures are representative
of welds made using the parameters
listed in Table 2. The fusion zone micro-
D structure of Ferralium Alloy 255 (Fig. 3A)
/ !i consists of large, epitaxial ferrite grains
y/y> y I / with continuous austenite networks at
j /
prior ferrite grain boundaries and intra-
granular austenite precipitates. The weld
ferrite content of the Ferralium Alloy 255,
determined using the Extended Ferrite a--*

Number (EFN) scale of the Magne-Gage

-rp' — : - — " *~ - ' - '
(Ref. 34), was on the order of EFN 60. The
adjacent heat-affected zone (HAZ) also
5Oum _ f -Sgjofcv? -rfZr^iJr '•»?. '-j^'-y.:'vrr. y-*>?i
50,um ^ - ^ ^ - ~. t- -* ^$£—*-tT. ;-^ exhibited a continuous grain boundary
austenite network but showed little intra-
Fig. 3—The weld fusion boundary regions of the duplex stainless steels evaluated. A —Ferralium
Alloy 255; B- Uddeholm NU744LN; C-Alloy 21-9; D-Alloy 23-7. Arrows indicate the approxi- granular austenite precipitation. Instead, a
mate location of the weld fusion interface fine precipitate was observed to be local-

244-s | AUGUST 1987

ized in the ferrite phase. These particles
could not be precisely identified, but Table 3- -Summary of Mini-Varestraint Test
were found to be enriched in chromium Results
(Ref. 35). A precipitate-free zone corre-
/o No. TCL
sponds to regions surrounding the aus-
Material Strain Cracks (mm)
tenite, suggesting that austenite may act
as a sink for fast-diffusing, interstitial ele- Ferralium 1.0 2 0.41
ments, such as carbon and nitrogen, Alloy 255 1.5 4 0.76
which may be integral in the formation of 2.1 13 3.00
the precipitate. 3.1 24 6.24
5.0 40 10.44
The weld microstructure and fusion
boundary region of the Uddeholm Uddeholm 1.0 4 0.34
NU744LN steel are shown in Fig. 3B. The NU744LN 1.5 4 0.41
25-m. 2.1 16 2.42
ferrite content of the fusion zone was
approximately EFN 70. Similar to the Fer- 3.1 24 5.57
Fig. 4 — Ferralium Alloy 255 fusion zone micro- 5.0 31 6.31
ralium Alloy 255, continuous austenite structure. Note the alignment of intragranular
networks existed at the ferrite grain austenite along the solidification growth direc- Alloy 0.5 0 0
boundaries. A fine distribution of intra- tion 21-9 1.0 0 0
granular precipitates was observed with- 2.1 5 0.72
in the fusion zone, reminiscent of the cracking susceptibility was provided by 3.1 21 3.58
HAZ microstructure in the Ferralium Alloy plotting the total crack length (TCL) on 5.0 43 7.10
255 (Fig. 3A). the specimen surface versus the aug- Alloy 0.5 0 0
The weld structure of Alloy 21-9, mented strain over the range from Vs to 23-7 1.0 0 0
shown in Fig. 3C, consisted of large 5%, as illustrated in Fig. 5. Using this index, 2.1 15 1.18
ferrite grains with Widmanstatten-type the Ferralium Alloy 255 proved to be the 3.1 12 2.23
austenite precipitating from the grain most susceptible to hot cracking of the 5.0 35 5.98
boundary austenite. The ferrite content duplex alloys over the entire range of
Type 304L 0.5 0 0
of the Alloy 21-9 fusion zone was on the augmented strain. At intermediate strain (FN 5) I 0 0 0
order of EFN 40, the lowest of the four levels (2 and 3%), the hot cracking sus- 2 I 5 0.47
duplex alloys evaluated. Alloy 23-7 exhib- ceptibility of Ferralium Alloy 255 and 3.1 33 2.65
ited a highly ferritic fusion zone micro- Uddeholm NU744LN were essentially 5.0 46 5.55
structure with a ferrite content of identical, but both exceeded that of the
Type 304L 0.5 6 1.73
approximately EFN 80 (Fig. 3D). Austenite experimental alloys (21-9 and 23-7) and
(FN 0) 1.0 16 6.23
in the Alloy 23-7 fusion zone was restrict- the Type 304L alloy with 4.5 FN. At the
2.1 21 8.92
ed almost exclusively to the grain bound- lowest levels of augmented strain (below 3.1 24 11.86
aries. The fine intragranular precipitation 1.5%), all the alloys tested, with the
observed in the Uddeholm NU744LN exception of the fully austenitic Type
fusion zone was not apparent in Alloy 304L material, exhibited equivalent crack
Weld solidification substructure
boundaries were not readily apparent in
any of the weld microstructures. Closer 12-
examination of the Ferralium Alloy 255
microstructure (Fig. 4) did indicate that
the intragranular austenite may precipi-
tate along prior substructure (cellular or
E 10-
dendritic) boundaries. As mentioned pre- E 9-
viously, during solidification as primary
ferrite, nickel partitions to the solidifica- 8-
tion boundaries (Refs. 20, 22, 23). Assum- O
ing diffusion is insufficient to eliminate the Z 7
local nickel enrichment, this boundary will LU
become a preferential site for austenite
precipitation during cooling through the
austenite plus ferrite phase field (Fig. 2). a
As the Cr e q /Ni e q increases, diffusion is
more pronounced, since the weld cools 4-
through a larger temperature range in the CJ
ferrite phase field before the austenite _J L«g*nd
transformation begins. As a result, any
evidence of prior solidification structure i< 2- rCMAUUM .VU.0T

or tendency for intragranular austenite

precipitation is severely reduced.
o 1 TYP[ ) 0 4 L - r H - 0
JtPl 3041.- ^4_5_
0 «n-°T»-»
* » • " " » - » <
Varestraint Test Results
The results of mini-Varestraint tests for 2 3 4
the four duplex alloys and t w o Type 304L
alloys are summarized in Table 3. The
best index of the relative fusion zone hot Fig. 5 —Results of the mini-Varestraint test in terms of total crack length vs. augmented strain


cantly greater than when austenite is a
secondary solidification product, i.e.,
Type 304L, FN 4.5.

Metallographic Analysis of
Varestraint Samples
Metallographic examination of the
duplex stainless steel Varestraint samples
revealed that hot cracking in all four
materials was associated with fusion zone
grain boundaries. Partitioning of alloy and
impurity elements is generally greater
along these grain boundaries than at the
subgrain boundaries (Refs. 7, 8, 22), and
thus weld hot cracking is more prevalent
—- at these sites1.
The top surface of a Ferralium Alloy
• - 255 Varestraint sample tested at 5% strain
is shown in Fig. 6. The hot cracks were
distributed around the periphery of the
solid-liquid interface at the instant of
applied strain. As noted, the cracks
shown in Fig. 6 were located at grain
boundaries in the Ferralium Alloy 255
microstructure. These boundaries were
delineated by the continuous austenite
I SO M"1 I At higher magnification (inset, Fig. 6),
note that austenite side plates emanated
from the crack boundaries. Since it is
Fig. 6 — Fusion zone hot cracking in a Ferralium Alloy 255 Varestraint sample tested at 5% strain (top likely that solidification of Ferralium Alloy
surface section). Arrows indicate the approximate location of the solid-liquid interface at the instant 255 occurred entirely as ferrite (no eutec-
of testing tic/peritectic reaction), this austenite
formed during cooling from the solidifica-
susceptibilities. None of the duplex alloys embrittlement temperature range (Ref. tion range. Thus, the hot crack shown in
approached the high degree of crack 36). The average crack length (ACL) at Fig. 6 initiated and propagated along
susceptibility found in the fully austenitic 3.1% strain for the four duplex materials ferrite-ferrite grain boundaries.
Type 304L alloy. and the t w o 304L alloys is presented in A transverse metallographic section
The average length of hot cracks at a Table 4. The ACL for the duplex materials from a Ferralium Alloy 255 Varestraint
particular strain level may also be used as is two to three times greater than that of sample is shown in Fig. 7. This section was
a measure of the degree of susceptibility the Type 304L alloy with FN 4.5, but is located such that the subsurface hot
to cracking and often provides an indica- only one-third to one-half that of the fully cracks which formed during the Vare-
tion as to the relative magnitude of the austenitic Type 304L alloy. Assuming that straint test were revealed. The solidifica-
the temperature gradient into the solid is tion growth direction was nearly vertical
nearly linear at temperatures just below in Fig. 7. This growth orientation resulted
the liquidus and relatively uniform for all in relatively straight grain boundaries,
the materials (welding parameters were which facilitated crack propagation.
identical), the embrittlement temperature A metallographic section representa-
range for fully ferritic or fully austenitic tive of the top surface of a Uddeholm
solidification would appear to be signifi- NU744LN Varestraint sample is shown in
Fig. 8. Again, note that hot cracking was
restricted to the prior-ferrite grain bound-
y 2r'&: aries, as delineated by the continuous
~ >?. *£& y -V: austenite networks. Similar metallograph-
yW^- r-.-i sS&i *(?%
'Af% yt -. ic sections are presented for Alloy 21-9
and Alloy 23-7 in Fig. 9.

1. Two types of grain boundaries may exist in

the weld fusion zone. One type results from
the impingement of solidification subgrains of
different growth orientation and is delineated
by both the growth orientation mismatch and
elemental segregation. The other type results
J€, - from migration of this boundary on cooling
fe%.,MfifelO 0 ,„ir lOOum from the solidification temperature range. The
Fig. 7— Transverse section of a Ferralium AlloyFig. 8 —Fusion zone hot cracking in a Udde- former is the usual site for weld hot cracking
255 Varestraint specimen tested at 3% strain. holm NU744LN Varestraint specimen tested at and, unless otherwise specified, will be the
Note the straight grain boundaries along which 5% strain type implied in this paper when discussing the
cracks propagate weld fusion zone microstructure.

246-s | AUGUST 1987

phology of the Type 304L alloys was also
examined and is shown in Fig. 10. Hot B
cracks in the fully austenitic (FN 0) Type
304L Varestraint specimens were associ- .iS^~rv-
ated with relatively straight fusion zone
grain boundaries (Fig. 10A), similar to the
morphology exhibited by the duplex
alloys (Figs. 6-9). In contrast, hot cracks in
the Type 304L alloy which exhibited FN \
4.5 were extremely short and could not
be associated with a distinct fusion zone
grain boundary (Fig. 10B).
Heat-affected zone cracking was not
observed in either the duplex alloys or 100M"I 100jim
the Type 304L alloy with FN 4.5, even at
Fig. 9 - Fusion zone hot cracking in experimental duplex stainless steel Varestraint specimens tested
the highest level of restraint. In contrast, at 5% strain. A -Alloy 21-9; B-Alloy 23-7
heat-affected zone cracking was routine-
ly observed in the fully austenitic Type
304L alloy. These HAZ cracks were usual- rj ••',y-'~
A 'Ji / - v y \y^.y,
ly continuous across the fusion line, sug- ''B.yr.,--
gesting that the cracks initiated in the a' a V . .'' / / V71f /

fusion zone and propagated into the

heat-affected zone. -•A • y
y, *,.* y.\,-•:•*/.-; -
'. *• V , *
• ', J * 6 y.y yL> / t .-; i
* s '•' ' ~s ^* - " J

Figure 11 A, which illustrates a hot
, **v^ y?-yfy': Ay--y; t
crack fracture surface in Ferralium Alloy
^A, y.y:\\.'-\,y'. A /•'-'. "-T ••' H
. ' • \ <& • yy . , ,-.--'/
• > ' ' k ' \.' \ •> r i * \ z £y* -
J •.7- •
255, clearly reveals the fine protrusions
>~*-A\:, ':'"•"'> t ~:'-',''?~y, ' A'r /, te.
which correspond to cellular-dendrite pri- i i • ' ~ *_ "a- y • ,' i ' r. * -^ - /' '-;.
mary and secondary arms and which are 100nm 50nm - • •• J <' . . ' : : ' 1 -A '•

commonly associated with a solidifica- Fig. 10 — Fusion zone hot cracking in Type 304L Varestraint specimens tested at 5% strain. A—FN 0;
tion-related fracture surface. An examina- B — FN 4.5. Note difference in magnification
tion of this fracture surface at increased
magnification also revealed a transition in observed in the Ferralium 255. As indi- range of the weld metal. The analysis of
this fracture surface morphology from a cated in Figs. 12A and 12B, there was the remnants of these liquid films is often
relatively smooth, intergranular appear- strong evidence of the fracture of den- useful in determining the nature of the
ance on the surface of the crack most drites which may have acted as bridges cracking. Since these films tend to be
distant from the solid-liquid interface to separating the areas of low-melting liquid. extremely thin, electron optics tech-
an increasingly dendritic structure nearer However, the characterization of match- niques are usually employed to deter-
this interface (Figs. 11B and 11C). The ing opposite sides in order to confirm this mine their nature. The electron micro-
generally " w a v y " appearance of this sur- possibility was not conducted. probe is particularly well suited for ana-
face at high magnification confirmed that lyzing bulk samples.
the crack was completely solidification- A region along the tip of a hot crack in
related, and that crack extension by a Microprobe and Auger Analysis
a Ferralium Alloy 255 sample is shown in
solid-state "ductility dip" process was Weld hot cracking is usually associated Fig. 13. Analysis at several points along
unlikely. Fracture in the Uddeholm with liquid films which persist along fusion the crack path, as indicated in Fig. 13,
NU744LN and experimental duplex stain- zone grain boundaries, thus extending revealed an increase in molybdenum,
less steels appeared very similar to that the effective solidification temperature copper, nickel, and phosphorus relative

Fig. 11- Scanning electron fractographs of hot crack surface in Ferralium Alloy 255. A - Entire crack surface; arrow indicates end of crack farthest from
solid-liquid interface at the time of straining; B — higher magnification of A showing relatively flat fracture surface in regions farthest from solid-liquid
interface; C — higher magnification of A showing more dendritic-appearing fracture surface nearer the solid-liquid interface


commercial duplex stainless steels were
more resistant to cracking than a Type
304L alloy which solidified as austenite
and was fully austenitic (FN 0) at room
temperature. The cracking susceptibility
of the experimental duplex alloys (23-7
and 21-9) approached that of the Type
304L alloy with FN 4.5.
Field experience with commercial
duplex stainless steels (Refs. 28-30) sug-
gests that these materials are relatively
immune to weld hot cracking and com-
pare favorably with 300-series stainless
steels which produce a weld microstruc-
Fig. 12 — Scanning electron fractographs of hot crack surface in Uddeholm NU744LN. A — ture with FN 3-10. The apparent discrep-
Dendritic-appearing fracture surface; B - higher magnification of A showing apparent "fractured" ancy between field experience and the
dendrite Varestraint results (Fig. 5) may be
explained by considering the level of
to the bulk composition. The analysis was cal of solidification cracks. Note that solidification-induced strain to which the
confounded somewhat by the austenite molybdenum, nickel, copper, silicon, field welds are subjected. In Fig. 5, note
transformation which occurred along the nitrogen, and sulfur are present in appre- that at augmented strain levels below
boundary subsequent to the formation of ciable concentrations in the near-surface approximately 2%, the duplex stainless
the hot crack. Partitioning of austenite- layer. These results corroborate the elec- steels exhibit the same resistance to
forming elements (primarily Ni) to the tron microprobe results and indicate that cracking as the Type 304L alloy with FN
fusion zone grain boundaries during pri- higher levels of molybdenum and sulfur 4.5. Varestraint tests at restraint levels
mary ferrite solidification promoted the may be associated with the grain bound- below 2% are probably more representa-
formation of austenite at these sites, but ary film than were apparent from the tive of the actual welding practice using
it was unclear to what degree diffusion microprobe analysis. In contrast to the conventional processes (SMAW, GTAW,
following solidification modified the microprobe results, phosphorus was not GMAW). As a result, the satisfactory
boundary composition. For instance, detected on the fracture surface by the weld cracking resistance of the duplex
under equilibrium conditions, both nickel SAM. This discrepancy may be due to stainless steels which has been reported
and copper would tend to diffuse to the either insufficient data or to the precipita- is, in fact, predicted by the Varestraint
austenite during the ferrite-austenite tion of discrete phosphides along the test.
transformation. During rapid cooling fol- solidification boundary, which may have
lowing solidification, however, diffusion escaped detection by the highly localized The fully austenitic Type 304L alloy
of these elements would be more Auger technique. exhibited a significant increase in cracking
restricted. susceptibility relative to the duplex stain-
less steels at all levels of augmented
Auger surface analysis is also useful in Discussion strain. This large difference in cracking
determining the composition of thin films susceptibility is in general agreement with
on hot crack fracture surfaces. Since Evaluation of Varestraint Test Results
service experience using fully austenitic
cracks propagate along a liquid grain Weld hot cracking is the product of a stainless steel weld metals.
boundary film, the surface of these crack-susceptible microstructure and At higher levels of weld restraint
cracks will reflect the composition of the weld restraint during solidification. In the- (> 2%), the susceptibility of the duplex
liquid. Again, the analysis was confound- ory, fusion zone microstructures in all but stainless steels to weld hot cracking was
ed both by the solid-state transformation pure materials (or alloys which solidify at found to increase relative to Type 304L
that occurred along the boundary during an invariant point, such as a eutectic) may with FN 4.5. Specifically, at 3.1% strain
cooling and by high-temperature diffu- be susceptible to cracking during the final (Fig. 5) the cracking susceptibility of the
sion. An Auger compositional profile to stages of solidification. In practice, the duplex alloys was approximately midway
an approximate 100-nm depth on the relative susceptibility of welds to hot between that exhibited by the t w o Type
surface of a hot crack in a Ferralium Vare- cracking is measured by the amount of 304L variants. This relative increase in
straint specimen is shown in Fig. 14. strain that the microstructure can accom- susceptibility at higher strain levels sug-
The depth profile was performed in a modate during solidification. Weld micro- gests that the duplex stainless steels may
region of the fracture surface which structures which can accommodate large experience weld cracking problems in
exhibited the dendritic morphology typi- imposed strains during solidification are applications where the weld restraint is
resistant to hot cracking, while those high (for example, high depth-to-width
which fail at low levels of restraint are restrained joints).
judged susceptible. The Varestraint test is The difference in cracking susceptibility
a useful tool for both determining the at higher strain levels may result from
degree of strain accommodation in a several factors, including the possibility
particular microstructure and comparing that at lower strains the solidification
that behavior with alternate microstruc- boundary strength may be sufficient to
tures. resist separation, despite the presence of
In this investigation, the Varestraint test low-melting liquid at these boundaries.
v. i
results have shown that the commercial Above some critical strain level (1.5-2%),
duplex stainless steels (Ferralium Alloy the boundary strength may be insuffi-
255 and Uddeholm NU744LN) are more cient to prevent separation, resulting in
20 nil susceptible to weld solidification cracking the formation of a hot crack.
Fig. 13 — Electron microprobe analysis results than a Type 304L alloy which solidified as Despite the similarity in solidification
near the crack tip in a Ferralium Alloy 255 ferrite and exhibited a fusion zone micro- behavior, the experimental duplex alloys
Varestraint specimen structure with FN 4.5. Conversely, these are, in general, less susceptible to weld

248-s | AUGUST 1987

hot cracking than the commercial alloys.
Differences in solidification crack suscep-
tibility among similar alloys are often the
result of slight variations in chemical com-
position, particularly with respect to
impurity content. Table 1 shows that the
level of sulfur and phosphorus in the
experimental alloys was higher than that
in the commercial alloys. Thus, the
increase in cracking susceptibility due to
higher impurity levels is not possible.
Note that both copper and molybde-
num are present in the Ferralium (1.7Cu, Fig. 14 —Auger
3.1Mo) and Uddeholm (0.2Cu, 2.4Mo) depth profile
alloys but absent in the experimental showing the
alloys. Electron microprobe and Auger concentration of
analysis of solidification grain boundaries elements on a
(Fig. 13) and hot crack fracture surfaces Ferralium Alloy 255
hot crack surface.
(Fig. 14) of these alloys revealed an in-
Carbon and oxygen
crease in both of these elements at these were present as a
locations. Other elemental segregation 20-nm-thick
(Ni, Mn, Si, P, S) to the solidification grain contamination layer
boundaries was similar among the duplex but have been
alloys and thus does not explain the omitted for clarity
difference in cracking susceptibility. DEPTH (nm)
Copper and molybdenum both de-
press the melting point of Fe-base alloys
(Refs. 37, 38). As a result, significant attributed to a decrease in the quantity of ular corrosion or mechanical fracture in
localized segregation of these elements residual liquids at interdendritic regions the weld fusion zone, suggesting that this
to solidification grain and subgrain with decreasing temperature. Little ten- region is associated with crack propaga-
boundaries would likely reduce the solid- dency for the flat columnar fracture sur- tion along a migrated grain boundary.
ification temperature relative to the sur- face has been reported for hot cracks in This possibility is supported by Matsuda
rounding weld microstructure and welds which exhibit coupled ferrite/aus- and Nakagawa (Ref. 39), who suggest
expand the effective solidification range tenite solidification along fusion zone that the flat fracture originates from grain
of the weld. Unfortunately, it is difficult to grain and subgrain boundaries and which boundary migration among residual liq-
predict the effect of individual alloying or contain a small amount of ferrite (FN uids in the low-temperature crack region,
impurity elements on hot cracking sus- 3-10) in the room temperature micro- and by Dixon and Phillips (Ref. 41), who
ceptibility in multicomponent systems structure (Ref. 39). These results are con- relate flat fracture to the formation of
from simple equilibrium binary systems. sistent with the fractographic analysis of grain boundaries during the final stages of
Synergistic interactions with other alloy- the FN 4.5 Type 304L alloy evaluated in solidification. Unfortunately, details of
ing (Ni, Mn, Cr, Si, C, N) or impurity the present investigation. these grain boundary phenomena during
elements (S and P) may promote the In order to understand the origin of the the final stages of solidification have not
formation of liquid films along fusion flat fracture on the surface of the weld been reported. Although the present
zone boundaries, which would not be hot cracks in the duplex alloys, and deter- investigation did not identify the specific
predicted by consideration of simple mine how this morphology relates to origin of the flat fracture region, several
binary reactions. These same synergisms cracking susceptibility, it is necessary to potential explanations can be offered.
may enhance the wetting characteristics define the boundary along which the These include:
of the liquid along ferrite grain bound- fracture occurs. The fusion zone grain 1. Grain boundary migration and
aries and further increase the cracking boundaries along which hot cracking is straightening while liquid is still present in
susceptibility. most prevalent originate by the impinge- a continuous or semi-continuous distribu-
ment of cellular dendrites of different tion.
growth orientation during the final stages 2. Liquid penetration under a state of
Hot Crack Morphology of solidification. Microscopically, this stress of a solidified and migrated grain
Hot crack surfaces generally exhibit boundary would be expected to be very boundary (analogous to liquid metal
fine protuberances associated with pri- irregular during the final stages of solidifi- embrittlement).
mary and secondary cellular-dendrite cation, and thus would tend to migrate 3. The occurrence of solid-state "duc-
arms. In the present study, the careful following solidification in an effort to tility-dip" cracking.
examination of hot crack surfaces for the minimize the total grain boundary area. As noted above, Type 304L stainless
duplex stainless steels also revealed a Evidence of such grain boundary migra- steels exhibiting FN 3-15 display an exclu-
columnar, microscopically flat region, and tion is often visible in the room tempera- sively dendritic crack surface (Ref. 39).
a gradual transition from this flat fracture ture microstructure as a difference Matsuda and Nakagawa (Ref. 39) suggest
near the rear portion of the hot crack between the actual grain boundary and that this absence of flat fracture is related
(that farthest from the solid-liquid inter- the original solidification boundary, as to the peritectic/eutectic reaction experi-
face at the time of straining) to increasing- delineated by the presence of residual, enced during solidification of most Type
ly dendritic fracture near the front of the segregated alloying elements. 304 stainless steels, which prevents the
crack. Similar transitions in hot crack sur- The examination of flat fracture sur- grain boundary from migrating and
face topography have been reported faces in the duplex alloys studied in this straightening at near-solidus tempera-
previously in stainless steels which solidify investigation showed columnar-shaped, tures. The concept of such grain bound-
to either fully ferritic or fully austenitic smooth fracture surfaces comparable to ary irregularity or tortuosity reducing hot
structures (Refs. 39-41), and have been those commonly observed for intergran- cracking in austenitic stainless steels was


originally p r o p o s e d b y M a t s u d a (Ref. 36) References 22. Lippold, J. C , and Savage, W . F. 1982.
a n d later b y Brooks (Ref. 23) t o explain Solidification of austenitic stainless steel weld-
t h e cracking resistance o f t h e l o w FN 1. Solomon, H. D., and Devine, T. M. 1983. ments: part 3 - t h e effect of solidification
A tale of t w o phases. Conf. Proc. Duplex behavior on hot cracking susceptibility. Weld-
stainless steel w e l d s . In w e l d m e n t s w h i c h
Stainless Steels, ASM, pp. 693-756. ing Journal 61(12):388-s to 396-s.
solidify c o m p l e t e l y t o austenite or ferrite,
2. DeBold, T. A., Martin, ). W , and Tver- 23. Brooks, J. A., Thompson, A. W., and
this grain b o u n d a r y m o t i o n is n o t restrict-
berg, ). C. 1983. Duplex stainless offers Williams, J. C. 1984. A fundamental study of
e d , w h i c h results in a less t o r t u o u s strength and corrosion resistance. Ibid., pp. the beneficial effect of delta ferrite in reducing
b o u n d a r y a n d a greater cracking sensitiv- 169-189. weld cracking. Welding Journal 63(3):71-s to
ity. Correlations of quantitative cracking 3. Poznansky, A., Nalbone, C. S., and Craw- 83-s.
results w i t h f r a c t o g r a p h y results dis- ford, J. D. 1983. The corrosion resistance of 24. Ogawa, T., and Tsunetomi, E. 1982. Hot
cussed a b o v e f o r the present investiga- 25Cr-3.5Mo-6Ni and 25Cr-4.5Mo-6Ni cast cracking susceptibility of austenitic stainless
t i o n s u p p o r t this p r o p o s e d grain b o u n d - duplex stainless steels. Ibid., pp. 431-444. steels. Welding Journal 61(3):82-s to 93-s.
ary t o r t u o s i t y e f f e c t o n hot cracking sus- 4. Honeycombe,)., and Gooch, T. G. 1977. 25. Arata, Y., Matsuda, F., and Katayama, S.
ceptibility. Intergranular attack in welded stress-corrosion 1977. Solidification crack susceptibility in weld
resistant stainless steels. Welding Journal metals of fully austenitic stainless steels (report
56(11):339-s to 353-s. il). Trans. /l4//?/6(1):105-116.
5. Tynell, M. 1983. Applicability range for a 26. Takalo, T., Suutala, N., and Moisio, T.
high strength duplex stainless steel in deep 1979. Austenitic solidification mode in austenit-
sour oil and gas wells. Conf. Proc. Duplex ic stainless steel welds. Met. Trans. 10A
1. Varestraint test results s h o w the
Stainless Steels, ASM, pp. 283-292. (8):1173-1181.
c o m m e r c i a l duplex stainless steels, Ferral-
6. Miyuki, H., Kudo, T., Koso, M., Miura, 27. Suutala, N., Takalo, T., and Moisio, T.
i u m Alloy 255 a n d U d d e h o l m N U 7 4 4 L N ,
M., and Moroishi, T. 1983. 25%Cr containing 1979. Single-phase ferritic solidification in aus-
t o b e m o r e susceptible t o fusion z o n e duplex phase stainless steel for hot sea water tenitic-ferritic stainless steel welds, Met. Trans.
h o t cracking t h a n Fe-Cr-Ni e x p e r i m e n t a l applications. Ibid., pp. 95-112. 10A(8):1183-1190.
duplex alloys w h i c h exhibit similar solidifi- 7. Savage, VV. F., tundin, C. D., and Aron- 28. Blumfield, D., Clark, G. A., and Guha, P.
cation b e h a v i o r . son, A. H. 1965. Weld metal solidification 1981. Welding duplex austenitic-ferritic stain-
2. Varestraint test results s h o w that mechanics. Welding Journal 44(4): 175-s to less steel weldments. Metal Construction
t h e c o m m e r c i a l duplex stainless steels are 181-s. 13(5):269-273.
m o r e susceptible t o cracking at high lev- 8. Savage, W . F., Nippes, E. F., and Miller, T. 29. Gooch, T. G. 1983. Weldability of
VV. 1976. Microsegregation in 70Cu-30Ni duplex ferritic-austenitic stainless steels. Conf.
els of a u g m e n t e d strain than a FN 4.5
weld metal. Welding Journal 55(6): 165-s to Proc. Duplex Stainless Steels, ASM, pp. 573-
T y p e 304L stainless steel, but less suscep- 173-s. 602.
tible t h a n a FN 0 T y p e 304L stainless steel 9. Borland, ). C. 1960. Generalized theory 30. Flasche, L. H. 1983. Weldability of Fer-
o v e r the entire range o f strain. of super-solidus cracking in welds and castings. ralium Alloy 255. Ibid., pp. 553-572.
3. Fusion zone hot cracking in t h e Brit. Weld. Jour. 7(8):508-512. 31. Lundin, C. D., Lingenfelter, A. C ,
duplex stainless steels o c c u r r e d exclusive- 10. Apblett, W . R„ and Pellini, W . S. 1954. Grotke, G. E., Lessmann, G. O , and Matthews,
ly along ferrite grain b o u n d a r i e s . H A Z Factors which influence weld hot cracking. S. ]. 1982. The Varestraint test. Weld. Res.
cracking in the duplex alloys was n o t Welding Journal 33(2):83-s to 90-s. Council Bulletin, No. 280.
o b s e r v e d in t h e d u p l e x o r FN 4.5 T y p e 11. Medovar, B. I. 1954. O n the nature of 32. Berry, W . E. 1967. Procedures for quan-
weld cracking. Avtom. Svarka 7(4):12-18. titative removal of oxide scales formed in high
304L stainless steels, a l t h o u g h it w a s
12. Borland, ). C. 1960. Hot cracking in temperature water and steam. Materials Pro-
present in t h e FN 0 T y p e 304L stainless tection 6(7):69.
welds. Brit. Weld. Jour. 7(9):558-559.
steel. 13. Scherer, R., Riedrich, G., and Hougardy, 33. Lippold, ). C , and Savage, W . F. 1979.
4. O p t i c a l m e t a l l o g r a p h y in c o n c e r t H. 1941. Welding Rod, U.S. Patent Solidification of austenitic stainless steel weld-
w i t h electron m i c r o p r o b e and Auger 2,240,672. ments, part 1 — a proposed mechanism. Weld-
analysis suggest that t h e greater cracking 14. Borland, ). C , and Younger, R. N. 1960. ing Journal 58(12):361-s to 374-s.
susceptibility of the c o m m e r c i a l duplex Some aspects of cracking in welded Cr-Ni 34. Kotecki, D. J. 1982. Extension of the
stainless steels resulted f r o m the likely austenitic steels. Brit. Weld. Jour. (1):22-59. WRC ferrite number system. Welding Journal
f o r m a t i o n o f a c o m p l e x , l o w - m e l t i n g liq- 15. Hull, F. C. 1967. Effect of delta ferrite on 61(11):352-s to 361-s.
the hot cracking of stainless steel. Welding 35. Greulich, F. A. 1985. Unpublished
uid film e n r i c h e d in c o p p e r and p h o s p h o -
Journal 46(9):399-s to 409-s. research performed at Sandia National Labora-
16. Fredriks, H., and Vander Toorn, L. ]. tories, Livermore, Calif.
5. Fractographic e x a m i n a t i o n of the 1968. Hot cracking in austenitic stainless steel 36. Matsuda, F., Nakagawa, H., Uehara, T.,
f r a c t u r e surfaces s h o w e d a transition weld deposits. Brit. Weld. Jour. (4):178-182. Katayama, S., and Arata, Y. 1979. A new
f r o m dendritic t o flat f r a c t u r e exclusively 17. Masumoto, I., Tamaki, K., and Kutsuna, explanation for the role of delta ferrite in
in the single-phase-solidifying duplex M. 1972. Hot cracking of austenitic weld improving the weld solidification crack suscep-
stainless steels. T h e existence of this flat metal. Trans. /I4/S41(11):1306-1341. tibility in austenitic stainless steel. Trans. JWRl
fracture has b e e n related t o t h e greater 18. Arata, Y., Matsuda, F., and Saruwatari, 8(1).
cracking susceptibility o f these alloys v e r - S. 1974. Varestraint test for solidification crack 37. Hellawell, A., and Hume-Rothery, W .
susceptibility in weld metal of austenitic stain- 1957. Phil. Trans. Royal Society of London, Ser.
sus the FN 4.5 T y p e 304L stainless steel,
less steels. Trans. JWRl 3(1):79-88. A, 249:417-459.
w h i c h exhibited only dendritic fracture.
19. Lundin, C. D., DeLong, W . T., and 38. Sinha, A. K „ Buckley, R. A., and Hume-
Spond, D. F. 1975. Ferrite-fissuring relationship Rothery, W . 1967. /. Iron and Steel Inst.
in austenitic stainless steel weld metals. Weld- 205:191-195
ing Journal 54(8):241-s to 246-s. 39. Matsuda, F., and Nakagawa, H. 1979.
The authors are grateful t o A n d y Gar- 20. Suutala, N., Takalo, T., and Moisio, T. Fractographic features and classification of
d e a , Clarence Karfs, Miles Clift a n d D a v e 1980. Ferritic-austenitic solidification mode in weld solidification cracks. Trans. JWRl 8(1).
Ruddle, all f r o m Sandia National L a b o r a t o - austenitic stainless steel welds. Met. Trans. 40. Dixon, B. F„ and Phillips, R. H. Cracking
11A(5):717-725. in the trans-Varestraint test, part 3 —fractogra-
ries, L i v e r m o r e , Calif., w h o s e willing assis-
21. Matsuda, F., Nakagawa, H., Uehara, T., phy. Metal Construction (4):232-237.
tance a n d technical skills w e r e invaluable
Katayama, S., and Arata, Y. 1979. A new 41. Katayama, S., Fujimoto, T., and Matsu-
d u r i n g t h e c o u r s e of this investigation. This explanation for the role of delta-ferrite in nawa, A. 1985. Correlation among solidifica-
w o r k w a s s u p p o r t e d in part b y the U.S. improving weld solidification crack susceptibili- tion process, microstructure, microsegregation
D e p a r t m e n t o f Energy (DOE) u n d e r C o n - ty in austenitic stainless steel. Trans. JWRl and solidification cracking susceptibility in
tract N o . D E - A C 0 4 - 7 5 D P 0 0 7 8 9 . 8(1):105-112. stainless steel weld metals. Trans. JWRl 14(1).

250-s | AUGUST 1987