Acta mater.

48 (2000) 4191–4201
www.elsevier.com/locate/actamat

ON THE FORMATION OF A CENTRELINE GRAIN BOUNDARY

DURING FUSION WELDING
O. HUNZIKER, D. DYE and R. C. REED*
University of Cambridge/Rolls-Royce University Technology Centre, Department of Materials Science and
Metallurgy, Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3QZ, UK

( Received 31 March 2000; received in revised form 24 July 2000; accepted 4 August 2000 )

Abstract—The formation of a centreline grain boundary during fusion welding constitutes a potential weld-
ability issue and its presence may affect the life of a welded structure. In practice, it is therefore often
appropriate to avoid it through the choice of suitable welding conditions. A numerical model for the formation
of a centreline grain boundary is proposed. It involves the coupling of a semi-analytical heat transfer model
and a treatment of dendritic growth in multicomponent alloys. It has been applied to the tungsten–inert gas
(TIG) welding of IN718 superalloy. The thermal model and the predicted weld pool shape are validated
against experimental observations. A weldability diagram is predicted, on which the conditions for centreline
grain boundary formation are identified. The formation of a centreline grain boundary is found to be strongly
dependent on welding power, and relatively independent of welding velocity. A weldability window arises
if the formation of a centreline grain boundary is to be avoided.  2000 Acta Metallurgica Inc. Published
by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Welding; Nickel; Computer simulation; Solidification; Phase transformations

1. INTRODUCTION very little attention has been paid to this topic so far,
despite its very great importance for practical appli-
Thanks to the development of numerical techniques
cations. Although the treatment developed here only
and faster computers, much progress has been made
provides rough predictions because of the simplifying
during the past few years in the modelling of solidifi-
assumptions that are made, it has the advantage of
cation processes. It is now possible to simulate not
being very fast from a numerical point of view. It can
only heat transfer phenomena during casting (e.g.,
therefore be applied to a variety of welding conditions
[1]) and welding (e.g., [2, 3]), but also microstructural
within a reasonable amount of time and has therefore
features like grain structure [4] and phase transform-
some advantages over the CA approach for this parti-
ations [5, 6]. For the prediction of grain structures
cular problem. The model is coupled with other con-
during solidification, it can be argued that the most
siderations in order to establish a weldability map on
successful techniques developed so far have
which the regime for centreline grain boundary for-
employed the cellular automata (CA) approach. Com-
mation is identified. This work is part of a larger pro-
petitive grain growth [7], the columnar-to-equiaxed
ject aimed at establishing a theoretical approach to
transition [8] and grain selection during investment
the weldability of superalloys, including mechanical
casting [9] can all be handled. However, although
effects and solidification cracking [10]. In the present
these techniques have very powerful predictive capa-
paper comparisons are made with observations on
bilities, their widespread use particularly within pro-
tungsten–inert gas (TIG) welds in the alloy IN718,
cess models is limited by the large computation time
for the purposes of model validation.
and hardware resources required.
In the present paper, a simple approach is proposed
2. BACKGROUND: FORMATION OF A CENTRELINE
to describe the solidification processes occurring dur-
GRAIN BOUNDARY
ing fusion welding, in order to predict the formation
of a centreline grain boundary. It appears that only It is appropriate to list here, by way of background
information, the reasons why a centreline grain
boundary represents a potential defect in a weld. It
* To whom all correspondence should be addressed. Tel.: should be appreciated that, because it is the last
⫹44 1223 334 320; fax: ⫹44 1223 334 567. region of the weld to solidify, it is generally enriched
E-mail address: rcr10@cus.cam.ac.uk (R.C. Reed) in alloying elements and impurities. For this reason

1359-6454/00/$20.00  2000 Acta Metallurgica Inc. Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 1 3 5 9 - 6 4 5 4 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 2 7 3 - 1
4192 HUNZIKER et al.: FORMATION OF A CENTRELINE GRAIN BOUNDARY
앫 it has a lower melting temperature, making it
potentially subject to incipient melting during heat
treatment or service;
앫 it may contain eutectics and brittle phases and thus
have a lower mechanical resistance than the base
material, or else be less resistant to corrosion;
앫 it seems likely that the centreline grain boundary
has low toughness compared with other grain
boundaries in a weldment, which makes crack
propagation along it easier and potentially harmful
owing to its regular nature; and
앫 the formation of a centreline grain boundary may
in some circumstances be related to the occurrence
of solidification cracking, as is sometimes
assumed.
For these reasons, it is often appropriate to avoid
the presence of a centreline grain boundary through
the use of appropriate welding conditions. This is
usually done empirically and it appears that no rigor-
ous analysis has been reported so far. What are these
conditions, and can a predictive capability for its for-
mation be designed? At low welding speeds, it is well
known that the weld pool remains approximately cir-
cular and dendrites are able to follow the welding
direction. Under such conditions, one or several
grains fill the central region of the weld (e.g., [11]).
But when the welding speed is high, popular opinion
has it that the weld pool takes the shape of a tear
drop [12]. This is due to both the elongation of the
temperature field and the increase of growth
undercooling with velocity. In this case, dendrites
growing from both sides meet along the centreline of
the weld, forming a planar centreline grain boundary.
It must be appreciated that if growth undercooling is
not taken into account, no prediction of the formation
of a centreline grain boundary can be made on the
basis of the temperature field only. It is therefore
absolutely necessary to consider the solidification
behaviour of the alloy.
3. MODEL FOR THE FORMATION OF A
CENTRELINE GRAIN BOUNDARY
In order to make the computations tractable a num-
ber of assumptions are introduced. A steady-state or
“quasi-stationary” temperature field is computed with
a semi-analytical solution to the moving heat source
problem. Release of latent heat during solidification is
neglected. Convective and radiative cooling into the
environment and fluid flow effects within the weld
pool are ignored, and, consistent with the use of ana-
lytical solutions, constant thermal properties are
employed. The crystallographic orientation of the
dendrites is not taken into account and they are
assumed to grow in a direction that is always perpen-
dicular to the growth front. A consequence of this is
that grain competition is not described by the model.
Despite these limitations, it will be shown that very
useful and realistic calculations can be made by coup-
ling together estimates of (1) the heat transfer to the
workpiece and thus the temperature field developed,
and (2) the velocity/undercooling relationship of the
dendrite tips.
3.1. Heat transfer to workpiece
Analytical solutions to welding problems are gen-
erally closely related to the analysis of Rosenthal
[13], who evaluated the steady-state temperature field
during welding assuming a point heat source. In three
dimensions, the temperature field for a point source
moving on the surface of a semi-infinite solid is [13]:
q
T{x, y, z} ⫽ T0 ⫹ (1)
2πk√x2 ⫹ y2 ⫹ z2
再
⫻ exp ⫺
vb
2a 冎
(x ⫹ √x2 ⫹ y2 ⫹ z2) ,
where x and y are coordinates relative to the heat
source (moving frame), x being the welding direction,
T0 is the far-field temperature, q is the effective
power, vb is the welding speed, k is the thermal con-
ductivity and a is the thermal diffusivity.
In order to take into account the extent of the heat
source and to avoid the mathematical singularity of
the point source which equation (1) implies, the fol-
lowing solution for a circular Gaussian distribution of
power on the surface centred at the origin has been
employed [14]:
qa
T{x, y, z} ⫽ T0 ⫹ (2)
π3/2k
冕
⬁
exp{⫺[(x ⫹ vbt)2 ⫹ y2]/(s2 ⫹ 4at)⫺z2/4at}
⫻ dt,
√at(s2 ⫹ 4at)
0
where s is the distance from the heat source at which
the power density falls to a fraction 1/e of its
maximum value. Use of equation (2) demands a
numerical calculation of the integral, but is more
realistic than the point source model given by equ-
ation (1). Far from the source it should be noted that
equation (2) reduces to equation (1) and this simpli-
fication has been used to speed up the computation.
To apply equation (2) to a plate of infinite length
in the x direction but of finite width y and/or thickness
z, the method of images has been used [15]. This
involves adding to the three-dimensional (3D) sol-
ution, equation (2), the contributions of an infinite set
of fictitious heat sources located in such a way that
the surfaces of the plate become symmetry planes;
their adiabatic nature is thus respected. This involves
locating the fictitious sources at the mirror reflections
of the real source with respect to the adiabatic sur-
faces. In this way, the temperature at any point within
the plate of thickness ez and width ey is given by:
 HUNZIKER et al.: FORMATION OF A CENTRELINE GRAIN BOUNDARY 4193

冘 冘
⬁ ⬁

T{x, y, z} ⫽ T0 ⫹ (T⬘{x, y (3)

i ⫽ ⫺⬁j ⫽ ⫺⬁
⫹ 2iey, z ⫹ 2jez,z}⫺T0),

where T⬘{x, y, z} is evaluated using equation (2). In

practice, only a finite number of terms of the sum are
required to obtain a satisfactory result, the number
depending on the accuracy required and the size of
the domain under consideration.
3.2. Growth–undercooling relationship
In order to evaluate the growth undercooling as a
function of dendrite-tip velocity for alloy IN718, a
model for multicomponent dendritic growth is
required. As discussed in [16], there is much further
work to do to relax the many assumptions inherent
in existing multicomponent models, but this is not
within the scope of the present paper. For these com-
putations a suitable treatment has been developed for
IN718 by appealing to the growth models for a binary
alloy [17] and its extensions to ternary alloys [18, 19],
but with further refinements in order to make it appli-
cable to non-dilute alloys. The details of the dendrite-
tip growth model are given in Appendix A. In sum-
mary, the shape of the dendrite tip is modelled as a
circular paraboloid [20], the solid–liquid interface is
related to a temperature isotherm and the solutes are
assumed to diffuse independently. The phase diagram
is taken to be linear in the vicinity of the liquidus of
the alloy composition and is defined by the slopes mi
of the liquidus surface respect to any solute i and the
partition coefficients.
The chemical composition for IN718 and the other
parameters used for the model are shown in Table 1.
The phase diagram data (liquidus slopes and partition
coefficients) have been determined using Thermocalc
[21] and a thermodynamical database for superalloys
[22]. The result of applying the model to IN718 is
shown in Fig. 1, where the growth velocity of the
dendrites as a function of undercooling is represented.
As shown in Fig. 1, this relationship can be approxi-
mated by the following function:
Fig. 1. Dendritic growth velocity as a function of undercooling
for IN718, calculated with the model presented in Appendix
A. The straight line has been fitted to the calculated points
using a power law, see equation (1).
where n ⫽ 3.05 and a ⫽ 1.2754⫻10⫺7 m s⫺1 K⫺3.05.
This expression will be used for the determination of
the melt pool shape in the calculations which follow.
3.3. Estimation of melt pool shape
In order to predict the shape of the weld pool and
the formation of the centreline grain boundary, the
solidification model is coupled with the thermal
model. The temperatures at the mid-thickness plane
of the plate under consideration are extracted from
the thermal model.
The solidification rate of the growth front where its
normal forms an angle q with the welding direction
(Fig. 2) is given by:
vs ⫽ vb cos{q}, (5)
where vs is the local growth rate and vb is the welding
speed. At any point along the interface the local
growth rate must be related to the local undercooling
by the growth kinetics relationship:
vs ⫽ vkin{Tliq⫺T{x, y}}, (6)

vkin{⌬T} ⫽ a⌬Tn, (4) where y{x} is the position of the solidification front,
x being the coordinate in the welding direction and y

Table 1. Values of parameters used for the dendrite-tip growth modela

Solute Composition, C0 (at%) Liquidus slope, m (K/at%) Composition interval, ⌬C Partition coefficient, k∗
(at%)

Cr 21.18 ⫺2.74 ⫺1.37 0.961

Fe 18.68 ⫺0.29 ⫺2.92 1.084
Nb 3.12 ⫺20.48 2.59 0.183
Mo 1.81 ⫺9.42 0.70 0.638
Ti 1.15 ⫺16.06 0.69 0.406
Al 1.07 ⫺4.68 0.14 0.843
C 0.15 ⫺11.0 0.13 0.123

a
Parameters used for the calculation of the dendritic growth undercooling for IN718: diffusion coefficient, D ⫽ 2⫻10⫺9 m2 s⫺1; Gibbs–Thomson
coefficient, ⌫ ⫽ 2⫻10⫺7 m K; temperature gradient, G ⫽ 2⫻105 K m⫺1.
4194 HUNZIKER et al.: FORMATION OF A CENTRELINE GRAIN BOUNDARY

Fig. 2. Schematic diagram of the weld pool edge during weld-

ing in the steady-state condition. The solid is in the top left-
hand corner and the liquid pool on the bottom right. The liqui-
dus isotherm is denoted Tliq, y{x} is the position of the growth
front, vb is the welding speed and vs is the growth velocity.
The region between y{x} and Tliq is the undercooled liquid.

the distance to the weld centreline, see Fig. 2. Writing

q in terms of the slope of the interface y⬘{x, y}, the
location of the growth front y{x} is a solution of the
following differential equation:

vkin{T{x, y}}
y⬘{x, y} ⫽ . (7)
√v2b⫺v2kin{T{x, y}}
Fig. 3. Comparison between (a) an interrupted weld at 4 mm
s⫺1 and 600 W input power and (b) the corresponding calcu-
The command NDSolve in the software package lated weld with an effective power of 450 W corresponding to
Mathematica [23] has been used to solve equation (7), an efficiency of 75%, determined so as to match the width of
so that the shape of the fusion zone y{x} can be esti- the weld. No centreline grain boundary is formed under this
condition.
mated. The details of the algorithm employed by
NDSolve are described in [24]. In practice, it appears
to be more appropriate to operate on the derivative
so as to be perpendicular to the growth front; these
of equation (7), which is:
represent therefore the growth direction and a typical

冉
“average” orientation for the grain boundaries. One
(1 ⫹ y⬘2)3/2 ∂T
y⬙{x, y} ⫽ {x, y} (8) can see that the shape at the back of the weld pool
vb ∂x

冊
∂T dvkin
⫹ y⬘ {T{x, y}},
∂y dT
whilst respecting the boundary conditions of the prob-
lem. We note that solidification starts where the melt
pool is the widest and, therefore, we determine first
the coordinates xmax and ymax of the point at the largest
distance from the weld centreline which reaches the
liquidus temperature. At this point, the growth front
is stationary and therefore parallel to the welding
direction. This condition is used as a boundary con-
dition with equation (8):
y⬘{xmax, ymax} ⫽ 0.
The results from two example calculations are
given in Figs 3(b) and 4(b). At the back of the weld
pool, the extent of the undercooled liquid is delimited
by two lines, one of which corresponds to the liquidus
isotherm with the other representing the growth front.
The lines in the resolidified region have been defined
is round at low welding speed [Fig. 3(b)], becoming
sharper at higher speeds [Fig. 4(b)]. A limit exists
above which the formation of a centreline is to be
expected.
More needs to be said about the criterion for the
formation of the centreline grain boundary, which is
related to the angle that the growth front subtends
with the weld centreline, denoted l. If the growth
front is perpendicular to the welding direction at the
centreline [Fig. 3(b)], there is no discontinuity and
grains can follow the weld, i.e., they can grow for a
significant distance in the welding direction. On the
other hand, if the growth front forms an angle of less
than 90° with the centreline [Fig. 4(b)], the dendrites
meet those growing from the opposite side of the
(9) weld at an angle of significant magnitude, and a
centreline grain boundary is formed. For all of the
calculations we have made, we have found that there
is a sharp transition between the low-velocity regime
(l ⫽ 90°) and the high-velocity regime (l⬍90°). A
typical example is given in Fig. 5, in which the angle
between the solidification front and the centreline cal-
culated with this method is plotted as a function of
 HUNZIKER et al.: FORMATION OF A CENTRELINE GRAIN BOUNDARY
Fig. 4. Comparison between (a) an interrupted weld at 8 mm
s⫺1 and 1200 W input power and (b) the corresponding calcu-
lated weld with an effective power of 1000 W corresponding
to an efficiency of 83%, determined so as to match the width
of the weld. The growth front meets the centreline at an angle
of less than 90° and so a centreline grain boundary is formed.
Fig. 5. Angle between the growth front and the centreline at
the trailing edge of the weld pool as a function of velocity vb
and power q, with q ⫽ 150,000⫻vb. A very definite transition
occurs at about 750 W (5 mm s⫺1) corresponding to the forma-
tion of a centreline grain boundary.
velocity, for a constant energy per length of weld cor-
responding to 150 kJ m⫺1. In this case, the critical
value for the formation of the centreline grain bound-
ary is 750 W (5 mm s⫺1).
4. COMPARISON OF THEORY AND EXPERIMENT
For the purposes of model validation and in order
to test the predictions with respect to centreline grain
boundary formation, a number of autogeneous welds
4195
have been fabricated on 2 mm sheets of IN718. The
testpieces were of lengths and widths equal to 100
mm and 50 mm, respectively. For all experiments the
arc voltage was kept constant at 9 V with the welding
power altered by changing the welding current. Dur-
ing processing, the plates were mounted in a simple
jig with only minimal thermal contact with the sur-
roundings and the welding current, voltage and torch
speed were monitored and recorded. For all model-
ling, a thermal diffusivity of 4.9⫻10⫺6 m2 s⫺1 is
assumed. The thermal conductivity is given a value
of 20.8 W m⫺1 K⫺1, which corresponds to the value
half way between room temperature and the melting
point. The parameter s in the heat source, see equation
(2), was taken to be 3 mm; previous work had shown
this to be a reasonable choice [10].
4.1. Weld pool shape and grain structure—validation
For the purposes of model validation, we focus
attention initially on just two welds. The end spot of
a weld at 4 mm s⫺1 and with an input power of 600
W is shown in Fig. 3(a). Under these conditions, no
centreline grain boundary is formed. An effective
power of 450 W has been chosen to calculate Fig.
3(b) so as to match the width of the weld in Fig. 3(a),
corresponding to an efficiency of 75%. The calculated
weld pool shape in Fig. 3(b) matches fairly well with
the observed one, and does not predict the formation
of a centreline grain boundary.
The same approach has been applied to a weld at
8 mm s⫺1 and 1200 W (input power), where the weld
pool takes a tear drop shape and a centreline grain
boundary is formed. This weld is compared in Fig. 4
with the weld pool shape calculated using the same
velocity and an effective power of 1000 W, corre-
sponding to an efficiency of 83%. Once again, the
general shape of the weld pool is reproduced by the
model. However, although the elongation of the pool
is captured one should note that the shape of the
growth front at the trailing edge of the weld pool is
not described perfectly. This is most probably due to
the assumptions introduced in the model; these are
discussed further in Section 5.
During the present project we have concluded that
the shape of the weld pool can be described in an
approximate sense by the semi-analytical model.
Further confidence that the thermal transfer to the
workpiece has been captured adequately has been
gained through the use of thermocoupling—this has
been reported in [10] where it is shown that the ther-
mal cycles near to the weld are reproduced
adequately. Better agreement can be obtained using
finite element analysis in which temperature-depen-
dent material properties and convective cooling are
accounted for [10]. However, for the purposes of the
present paper in which the formation of the centreline
grain boundary is being explored, the semi-analytical
approach is deemed quite adequate.
4196 HUNZIKER et al.: FORMATION OF A CENTRELINE GRAIN BOUNDARY
Fig. 6. Predicted weld shapes under various welding speed and
power conditions. An increase of power makes the weld pool
longer and wider and an increase in velocity makes the weld
smaller.
4.2. Centreline grain boundary formation in relation
to a weldability map
Predictions for the formation of the centreline grain
boundary have been made for a wide range of weld-
ing conditions, see Fig. 6. The results are displayed
on a “weldability map” which corresponds to a plot
of welding power (efficiency⫻current⫻voltage) ver-
sus welding velocity, see Fig. 7. In order to establish
the regime in which successful welding is predicted,
Fig. 7. Calculated weldability map showing welding conditions
as a function of welding speed and power. Low power and
high velocity conditions produce non-penetrating or even non-
melting conditions, whereas high power and low velocity lead
to a very wide weld or even the complete melting of the plate.
The formation of a centreline grain boundary is predicted at
powers above 800–900 W and this defines a weldability win-
dow.
a simple thermal balance is applied to determine
whether the plate reaches a saturation temperature
that is above the melting point of the alloy. This line
is shown on the diagram and this defines the region
of complete melting of the plate, and thus an effective
upper limit on the power that can be employed. In
practice, weld widths above 10 mm need to be avo-
ided because of the sinkage of the weld metal and
also because the weld distortion is excessive, see Sec-
tion 4.3. Therefore, the line corresponding to a weld
width of 10 mm is also given in Fig. 7. In a similar
way, the thermal model can be used to estimate the
conditions where no melting occurs, and where melt-
ing occurs at the surface but not through the thick-
ness, i.e., a “non-penetrating” condition. The lines
determined in this way are also shown in Fig. 7.
These represent the lower limit on the power that can
be employed.
The weld pool shape prediction has been applied
to a range of speed and power in order to determine
the limits between the low-velocity and the high-velo-
city mode, so that the formation of the centreline
grain boundary can be estimated. We have found that
application of the centreline grain boundary criterion
allows a “weldability window” to be drawn on the
weldability map. The extent of the “weldable” region
depends upon the angle l subtended by the growth
front at the weld centreline, as shown. Centreline
grain boundary formation is predicted only at excess-
ive weld powers, with only a weak dependence on
the welding velocity. This prediction warrants testing
by experiment and rationalisation.
4.3. Centreline grain boundary formation in relation
to a weldability map—validation
In order to assess the accuracy of the centreline
grain boundary criterion, a very considerable number
of IN718 welds were fabricated over a wide range of
welding conditions, see Fig. 8. The welding speed
was varied between 0.5 mm s⫺1 and 9 mm s⫺1 whilst
the input power was varied between 100 and 1800
W, by altering the current whilst keeping the welding
voltage at 9 V. The welds were then examined using
traditional metallographical techniques, in order to
determine whether a centreline grain boundary had
formed, see Fig. 9. When a centreline grain boundary
was observed, see Fig. 9(b), the dendrites were
observed to impinge on the centreline; when this
occurred the etching characteristics there were often
very different from those in the rest of the weld, con-
sistent with the presence of considerable segregation.
Figure 10 shows the experimental welding map
that was obtained, on which the regions of penetrating
and non-penetrating conditions are identified.
Assuming an efficiency of 75% and taking s ⫽
3 mm for all conditions, it can be seen that the line
between the non-penetrating and the penetrating con-
ditions is reproduced fairly well. However, the non-
melting conditions do not appear in the experimental
map even at high speed and low power. It is likely
 HUNZIKER et al.: FORMATION OF A CENTRELINE GRAIN BOUNDARY
Fig. 8. Map of experimental TIG welds in IN718 which were fabricated for the purposes of producing an
experimental weldability map, see Fig. 10.
that the area on which the heat is produced gets
smaller for smaller power, due to variations in the
arc properties; this variation has not been taken into
account in the model, although one should note in
principle that it would be possible to give the para-
meter s a dependence on the processing conditions.
At low speed, it appears that welding remains poss-
ible in the region where complete melting was pre-
dicted. This is due to the fact that heat transfer from
the plate by radiation and convection, which becomes
dominant under such conditions, is neglected.
The limit between the two regimes of the weld pool
shape corresponding to the formation of the centreline
grain boundary is also shown in Fig. 10. The forma-
tion of a centreline grain boundary was observed con-
sistently at an input power of 苲800 W, which corre-
sponds to an effective power of 苲600 W if an
efficiency of 75% is assumed. Although it was not
easy to deduce whether a centreline grain boundary
had formed at the very lowest speeds since strong
surface oxidation and distortion of the weld metal
occurred, see Fig. 8, one can see that the general
trends are predicted reasonably well by the model. In
particular, the weak dependence of centreline forma-
tion on welding speed is reproduced. As can be seen
from Fig. 7, whether a centreline grain boundary is
predicted or not depends upon the value of the angle
l that is employed; a more conservative definition for
the formation of a centreline, corresponding to a
4197
smaller value of l, leads to a larger weldability win-
dow.
5. DISCUSSION AND RATIONALISATION OF
RESULTS
Before discussing the main results of this work, a
critique of the limitations and assumptions inherent
in the modelling is presented.
The thermal model is based on the additivity of the
heat equation, and assumes that the thermal conduc-
tivity and diffusivity are independent of temperature.
The release of latent heat upon solidification is not
taken into account, and it is known that this can
influence the weld pool shape. Heat transfer by radi-
ation and convection into the environment and fluid
flow in the weld pool are neglected. The efficiency
and the radius of the heat source are considered to be
independent of the welding speed and power, and thus
represent a first approximation only. Finally, although
the calculations consider a steady-state condition,
they are compared for validation with welds on rela-
tively small plates (50 mm⫻100 mm). Despite these
gross assumptions, it appears that the model provides
a fair approximation to the temperature field during
welding in the vicinity of the weld pool.
In the calculation of the shape of the growth front,
the dendrites are assumed to be aligned perfectly in
a direction that is always perpendicular to the growth
4198 HUNZIKER et al.: FORMATION OF A CENTRELINE GRAIN BOUNDARY
Fig. 9. Optical micrographs of weld microstructure for two
welding conditions, showing (a) lack of grain boundary
centreline and (b) formation of grain boundary centreline.
Fig. 10. Experimental welding map showing the weld proper-
ties as a function of welding speed and power. Dark dots indi-
cate non-penetrating welds whereas lighter ones represent fully
penetrating welds. The transition to welds where a centreline
grain boundary is formed is also shown.
front. It is well known, however, that dendrites have
preferred crystallographic growth directions and
therefore that they cannot bend in the temperature
field; for this reason they generally grow with a
slightly higher undercooling than this simple assump-
tion would suggest. As growth competition occurs,
the grains with an orientation close to the growth
direction are selected, and the undercooling is near
the minimum. However, in the central region of the
weld, considerable grain selection has occurred
already and there may few or no grains left to adapt
to the change in growth direction [11]. In cases where
a rapid change of growth direction is predicted in the
central region of the weld [Fig. 4(b)], this effect will
lead to an underestimation of the growth undercoo-
ling. This is a likely explanation for errors in the pre-
dicted shape at the trailing edge of the weld pool, see
Fig. 4(a). Finally, the growth model suffers from the
lack of good liquid diffusion data, which is parti-
cularly the case for the superalloys.
The most unexpected conclusion of this work is the
fact that the formation of a centreline grain boundary
depends primarily on the power and not considerably
on the welding speed, as is traditionally assumed
(e.g., [12]). We now rationalise this finding by
appealing to an argument concerned with the vari-
ation of the extent of undercooling with welding
power and velocity.
Consider Fig. 11, in which the liquidus isotherm is
drawn, along with the locus of the grain envelope of
dendrite tips. When a centreline is not formed, Fig.
11(a), the grains directly behind the welding source
on the centreline grow at a velocity given by the
welding speed v and an equivalent undercooling
⌬T{v} which can be estimated from the dendrite-tip
growth law, equation (4); this is the maximum
undercooling that can be experienced. For this reason
a second isotherm Tliq–⌬T{v} is also identified. Note
that the two isotherms meet the weld centreline at 90°
since the temperature gradient cannot have a disconti-
nuity there, but this is not the case for the grain envel-
ope when a centreline grain boundary is formed, see
Fig. 11(b). In both cases the envelope of dendrite tips
is constrained (in a geometrical sense) to lie between
the two isotherms identified. In IN718, the corre-
sponding temperature difference is small, 苲17 K for
Fig. 11. Schematic diagram illustrating the definition of the
undercooling distance ⌬xund: (a) for the case when no centreline
grain boundary exists and (b) when a centreline grain boundary
forms.
 HUNZIKER et al.: FORMATION OF A CENTRELINE GRAIN BOUNDARY 4199

v ⫽ 1 mm s⫺1 and 苲40 K for v ⫽ 10 mm s⫺1, see 1 v 4πk2d2v(Tliq⫺T0)2

Fig. 1. Our argument rests on the ratio of ⌬xund,
defined as the distance between the Tliq and Tliq–
⌬T{v} isotherms on the centreline, to the radius of
curvature r of the liquidus isotherm evaluated at the
trailing edge of the pool. When the ratio ⌬xund/r is
large one might reasonably expect a centreline grain
boundary to form.
For the present paper it is most appropriate to con-
sider Rosenthal’s two-dimensional (2D) solution
which is given by
再 冎再 冎
q vx vr
T ⫽ T0 ⫹ exp ⫺ K ,
2π␬d 2a 0 2a
where r2 ⫽ x2 ⫹ y2 and d is the plate thickness. Sim-
ple estimates are hampered by the presence of the
Bessel function but one should note that K0{s} can
be approximated by √π/2s exp{⫺s} to an accuracy of
10% for s>1 and 20% for s>0.3. Hence along the
centreline behind the heat source where r ⫽ ⫺x, one
has at the liquidus temperature when T ⫽ Tliq and
x ⫽ xliq
⫺q2a
xliq ⫽
4π␬ d v(Tliq⫺T0)2
2 2
⫽ ⫹ . (15)
r a q2a
For the welding conditions employed here it is inter-
esting to note that the first term on the left-hand side
of equation (15) is the dominant one. Combining
equations (14) and (15) one has
⌬xund
r
⫽
v
a 冉冊 冋1/3.05
q2 ⫹ 4πk2d2v(Tliq⫺T0)2
2πk2d2(Tliq⫺T0)3
.册
(16)
(10)
In Fig. 12 the expression for ⌬xund/r is plotted as
a contour map on a graph of effective welding power
q versus welding speed v. Also shown is the line com-
puted by the numerical model for the formation of
the grain boundary centreline. One can see that the
formation of the centreline grain boundary occurs
when ⌬xund/r⯝1, in the domain where the 2D sol-
ution is applicable. Here, one can also show that equ-
ation (16) yields to a good approximation
⌬xund/r⬀q2v0.32, so that the formation of a centreline
grain boundary is very much more sensitive to q than
v. Thus the results observed have been rationalised.
(11)

6. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

A semi-analytical heat transfer model has been

and
∂T 2π␬2d2v(Tliq⫺T0)3
∂x | T ⫽ Tliq
⫽
q2a
. (12)
One should use the expression for xliq in equation (11)
to check that the approximation used for the Bessel
function is reasonable. A simple insertion of the
material properties and the plate thickness used here
shows that, provided q is greater than 180 W, the
approximation is valid, and this is in excess of the
values used in this paper, see Fig. 8. Thus an estimate
can be made of the distance between the liquidus and
the isotherm corresponding to the maximum possible
undercooling, denoted ⌬xund. It is approximately
coupled with a treatment of multicomponent dendritic
growth, in order to predict the occurrence of a
centreline grain boundary during fusion welding. It is
shown that two regimes exist for the shape of the
weld pool: (1) a low-power regime where the trailing
edge of the weld pool has a finite radius of curvature
and where dendrites can follow the weld direction,
and (2) a high-power regime where the dendrites
impinge along the centreline at a significant and well-
defined angle, and thus a centreline grain boundary
is formed. It has been found that the formation of
the centreline grain boundary depends mainly on the
welding power, with only a weak dependence on the

∂T
⌬xund⯝⌬T{v}
|
∂x
T ⫽ Tliq
, (13)

i.e., the ratio of the undercooling ⌬T{v} to the tem-

perature gradient ∂T/∂x evaluated at T ⫽ Tliq. Thus

⌬xund⯝ 冉冊v
a
1/3.05
⫻
q2 a
2π␬ d v(Tliq⫺T0)3
2 2
. (14)

Fig. 12. Contour map of ⌬xund/r on a plot of effective welding

power q versus welding speed v. Also shown is the line pre-
The radius of curvature r at the trailing edge of the dicted for the formation of a centerline grain boundary; one
pool where T ⫽ Tliq is given by [25] can see that this occurs when ⌬xund ⫽ r.
4200 HUNZIKER et al.: FORMATION OF A CENTRELINE GRAIN BOUNDARY

welding velocity. A weldability diagram is predicted, gible. For each of the solutes i, the following
which shows that a weldability window arises if the relationship is valid [19]:
formation of a centreline grain boundary is to be avo-

再 冎
∗
ided. An argument is put forward to rationalise the Cli ⫺C⬁i RV
∗ ∗ ⫽ Iv ⫽ Iv{Pei}, (A2)
strong dependence of centreline grain boundary for- Cli ⫺Csi 2Di
mation on welding power.
Comparison with welding trials carried out using
tungsten–inert gas (TIG) welding of IN718 sheet has where the ∗ indicates values at the solid–liquid inter-
indicated that the model, though not completely face, C⬁i is the far-field composition of i, V is the
accurate, can be used to predict (1) weld penetration, growth velocity, R the dendrite-tip radius and Di is
(2) the shape of the weld pool and (3) the formation the diffusion coefficient of the solute i in the liquid.
of the centreline grain boundary. Although the models The Ivantsov function is given by:
used here have deliberately been kept as simple as
possible, it is considered that the main phenomena

冕
⬁
controlling heat transfer and solidification are cap- exp{⫺u}
tured. We believe that the further development of this Iv{Pei} ⫽ Pei exp{Pei} du. (A3)
u
approach, for example by including treatments of sol- Pei
idification and liquation cracking, will allow welding
procedures for superalloys to be designed in a less
empirical manner than is possible at present. How-
The difference in composition between the solid and
ever, further work is required to relax the many
the liquid at the interface is:
assumptions introduced in the modelling; for
example, the effect of release of latent heat of solidi- ∗ ∗ ∗
Cli ⫺Csi ⫽ ⌬C⬁i ⫹ (1⫺k∗i )(Cli ⫺C⬁i ), (A4)
fication on weld pool shape and grain structure needs
to be studied.
where ⌬C⬁i is the difference in composition between
Acknowledgements—The authors would like to acknowledge a liquid of composition C⬁i and the solid in equilib-
the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council rium with it at the liquidus temperature. From equa-
(EPSRC), Rolls-Royce plc and the Defence Evaluation and tions (A2) and (A4), the composition of the liquid at
Research Agency (DERA) for sponsoring this work.
the interface can be now found by solving:

APPENDIX A ∗ Iv{Pei}
Cli ⫽ C⬁i ⫹ ⌬C⬁i , (A5)
1⫺Iv{Pei}(1⫺k∗i )
Dendrite-tip growth model
The model presented here for dendritic growth in and the undercooling of the interface is given by:
multicompenent alloys is based on the analysis by

冘
Rappaz et al. [19] with a small modification to make n
∗ 2⌫
it applicable to non-dilute alloys. The dendrite tip is ⌬T ⫽ ⫺ mi(Cli ⫺Ci⬁) ⫹ , (A6)
assumed to be a circular paraboloid [20], the solid– i⫽1
R
liquid interface is taken to be isothermal and the sol-
utes are assumed to diffuse independently. The phase
diagram is supposed to be linear in the vicinity of the where ⌫ is the Gibbs–Thomson coefficient which rep-
liquidus of the alloy composition and is defined by resents the proportionality factor between the curva-
the slopes mi of the liquidus surface respect to any ture of the interface and the corresponding undercoo-
solute i and the partition coefficients, but with the fol- ling.
lowing definition [17], which is slightly different In order to determine the radius R of the dendrite
from the one used by [19]: tip, the criterion of marginal stability is applied. The
smallest wavelength of a perturbation that could
∂Csi mli destabilise the plane interface of a solid growing
k∗i ⫽ ⫽ s, (A1) under the same conditions is taken. From [18, 19],
∂Ci mi
l
one has:

⌫
where Csi and Cli indicate respectively the compo-
sitions of the solid and the liquid at equilibrium, and
R ⫽ 2π 冪冘 n
miGci xci ⫺G
, (A7)
msi and mli the slopes of the solidus and liquidus sur- i⫽1
faces. It is assumed here for simplicity that the effect
of non-diagonal partition coefficients, and thus the
thermodynamic interaction between solutes, is negli- where xci is a parameter defined by:
 HUNZIKER et al.: FORMATION OF A CENTRELINE GRAIN BOUNDARY
√1 ⫹ (4πDi/RV)2
xci ⫽ 1⫺ (A8)
1⫺√1 ⫹ (4πDi/RV)2⫺2k∗i
and Gci is the composition gradient of the solute i
ahead of the interface. From equations (A2) and (A4):
V⌬C⬁i
Gci ⫽ ⫺ . (A9)
Di(1⫺(1⫺k∗i )Iv{Pei})
Since xci depends on R, equation (A7) does not yield
R explicitly. Therefore, it must be solved iteratively,
using the previous value of R to calculate xci .
REFERENCES
1. B. G. Thomas and C. Beckermann (eds), Modeling of Cast-
ing, Welding and Advanced Solidification Processes—VIII.
The Minerals, Metals and Materials Society, Warrendale,
PA, 1998.
2. H. Cerjak (ed), Mathematical Modelling of Weld Phenom-
ena. The Institute of Materials, London, 1998.
3. J. M. Vitek and S. A. David (eds), Trends in Welding
Research: Proceedings of the 5th International Confer-
ence. ASM International, Materials Park, OH, 1999.
4. Rappaz, M., Gandin, Ch. -A., Desbiolles, J. -L. and
Thevoz, Ph. Metall. Mater. Trans., 1996, 27A, 695.
5. Ion, J. C., Easterling, K. E. and Ashby, M. F. Acta metall.,
1984, 32, 1949.
6. Grong, O. Metallurgical Modelling of Welding, The Insti-
tute of Materials, London, 1994.
7. Gandin, Ch. -A. and Rappaz, M. Acta mater., 1994, 42,
2233.
4201
8. Rappaz, M. and Gandin, Ch. -A. Acta metall mater., 1993,
41, 345.
9. Carter, P., Cox, D. C., Gandin, Ch. -A. and Reed, R. C.
Mater. Sci. Eng., 2000, A280, 233.
10. Hunziker, O., Dye, D., Roberts, S. M. and Reed, R. C. in
Mathematical Modelling of Weld Phenomena 5, ed. H.
Cerjak and H. K. D. H. Bhadeshia, Institute of Materials,
London, 2000, (in press).
11. Li, M. and Brooks, J. A. Sci. Technol. Welding, 1998, 3,
89.
12. Easterling, K. E. Introduction to the Physical Metallurgy
of Welding, Butterworth, London, 1983.
13. Rosenthal, D., Trans. ASME, 1946, 68, 849.
14. Geissler, E. and Bergman, H. W. Opto Electronik Magazin,
1987, 3, 430.
15. Carslaw, H. S. and Jaegar, J. C. Conduction of Heat in
Solids, 2nd ed. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK,
1959.
16. Rappaz, M. and Boettinger, W. J. Acta mater., 1999, 47,
3205.
17. Kurz, W., Giovanola, B. and Trivedi, T. R. Acta metall.,
1986, 34, 823.
18. Bobadilla, M., Lacaze, J. and Lesoult, G. J. Cryst. Growth,
1988, 89, 531.
19. Rappaz, M., David, S. A., Vitek, J. M. and Boatner, L. A.
Metall. Trans., 1990, 21A, 1767.
20. Ivantsov, G. P. Dokl. Akad. Nauk. SSSR, 1947, 58, 567.
21. Sundman, B. Report D53, Summary of the Modules of
Thermo-calc, The Royal Institute of Technology, Stock-
holm, 1984.
22. Saunders, N. Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc., 1995, 351A, 543.
23. Wolfram, S. The Mathematica Book, 3rd ed. Wolfram
Media/Cambridge University Press, 1996.
24. Agarwal, R. P. Boundary Value Problems for Higher
Order Differential Equations, World Scientific, Philadel-
phia, PA, 1986.
25. Dye, D., Ph.D. Thesis. University of Cambridge, Cam-
bridge, UK, 2000.