WRC-1992 Constitution Diagram for Stainless Steel Weld Metals: A Modification of the WRC-1988 Diagram

Refined constitution diagram offers more accurate FN prediction for Cu-containing stainless steels and dissimilar metal joints
BY D. J. KOTECKI A N D T. A. SIEWERT ABSTRACT. To increase the scope and accuracy of Ferrite Number (FN) prediction in stainless steel weld metal and related dissimilar metal joints, a modification of the W e l d i n g Research Council 1988 diagram (WRC-1 988 diagram) is proposed. The proposed VVRC1992 diagram includes a coefficient for Cu in the Ni equivalent, thereby removing a tendency for the WRC-1 988 diagram to overestimate the FN of weld metals when the Cu content is high. Also, the axes of the WRC-1 992 diagram can be extended (as in the Schaeffler diagram) to predict dilution effects in dissimilar metal joints. Introduction The prediction of the microstructures and properties (such as hot cracking and corrosion resistance) for the austenitic stainless steels has been the topic of many studies. A 1985 review by Olson (Ref. 1) lists 169 references on m i crostructure and property prediction for austenitic w e l d metal. During the last two decades, two of the microstructure prediction diagrams have found the widest application. The Schaeffler diagram (Fig. 1), published in 1949, has been extensively used for estimating the ferrite content of stainless steel weld metals (Ref. 2). The diagram contains phase fields and isoferrite lines that permit prediction of the weld structure from the composition. It is still widely used for predicting the ferrite content of dissimilar metal weld deposits. Briefly, this involves calculating a " c h r o m i u m equivalent" (Cr eq ) and a "nickel equivalent" (Ni™) for each base metal and for the proposed filler metal, plotting each equivalent on the Schaeffler diagram, and drawing tie lines between the plotted points, proportioned according to expected d i l u t i o n , to obtain an estimate of the weld metal ferrite content. This has been a valuable tool for estimating the physical and mechanical properties of a weld. Several problems have been identified when using the Schaeffler diagram for this purpose, however. The Schaeffler diagram does not consider the powerful effect of N in promoting austenite at the expense of ferrite, and is incorrect in its treatment of M n . Manganese does not promote the high-temperature formation of austenite at the expense of ferrite, as predicted by the diagram, although Mn does stabilize austenite in its low-temperature transformation to martensite. Also, the Schaeffler diagram makes its predictions in terms of "percent ferrite." Later, this was found to be imprecise and the magnetically based "Ferrite Number" (FN) unit was developed for the specification and determination of ferrite content. The basis for the FN scale is described in standards ANSI/AWS A4.2 and ISO 8249. The other widely used prediction diagram, the DeLong diagram (Ref. 3), was published in 1974 and incorporated some improvements. It has an FN scale and includes a coefficient for N in the N i e q , though the range of compositions is more limited than for the Schaeffler diagram. In effect, the DeLong diagram traded improved prediction accuracy for a more limited composition range, but a range that included all the common austenitic stainless steel weld metals. However, it has been found to incorrectly handle Mn (as did the Schaeffler diagram) and to overestimate the FN of more highly alloyed compositions, such as Type 309 (Ref. 4). It also had limited application to dissimilar metal joints. The recently developed WRC-1 988 diagram (Ref. 4) overcomes many of the problems associated with the Schaeffler and DeLong diagrams. It was developed with data measured by the most recent definition of the FN scale, it removed the erroneous Mn coefficient from the N i e q , and eliminated the systematic overestimation of FN for highly alloyed weld metals. While it covers a much broader range of compositions than does the DeLong diagram, it has a narrower composition range than the Schaeffler diagram, because it extends only over the composition range of the commercial alloys (and experimental compositions that were minor modifications of commercial alloys) with which it was developed. In the interval since the WRC-1 988 diagram first appeared, it has been subject to evaluation and review. Independent data from over 200 w e l d metals have confirmed the improved prediction accuracy of the WRC-1988 diagram over that of its predecessors (Ref. 5). As a result, the WRC-1 988 diagram is being considered to replace the DeLong diagram in the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code. Effect of Cu on Ferrite Number In recent years, duplex ferriticaustenitic stainless steels have been used more frequently. Some of these steels, and their weld metals, contain significant amounts of Cu (often about 2%). W h i l e these compositions might be plotted on

KEY WORDS Ferrite Number WRC-1992 Diagram WRC-1988 Diagram Stainless Steel Cu Coefficient Ni Equivalent Dilution SS Weld Metals Dissimilar Joints Ferrite Prediction

D. j. KOTECKI is Technical Director for Stainless and High Alloy Product Development, The Lincoln Electric Co., Cleveland, Ohio. T. A. SIEWERT is Group Leader, Materials Reliability Div., National Institute of Standards and Technology, Boulder, Colo. Contribution of NIST not subject to copyright.


8). 2 indicates that the coefficient developed by Lake for Cu in 172-s I M A Y 1992 . 11). As a result.5 (Ref. 7). and the resulting calculated Ferrite Numbers for the Alloy 255 weld metals would therefore be on the order of 7 FN greater than the values given in Table 1 . 2 with different symbols that identify w h i c h points are for Alloy 255 (weld metals containing about 2 % Cu). the existing WRC-1 988 diagram w i t h reasonable accuracy. 2). Lake (Ref.25 in the N i e q equivalent and prepared a table of calculated vs. using data developed by both Lake and Kotecki. 1 — Schaeffler diagram (Ref. The contribution is then added to the original N i e q as calculated according to the WRC-1988 diagram (Ref. as indicated at the bottom of Table 1. When the standard error of an FN estimate was observed to be greater than the calculated intercept (implying that the term is not statistically significant). Lake's data are well distributed around the WRC-1988 diagram. 2. all of the data fall along a 1:1 line. Thus. 1 2) proposed a coefficient for Cu of 0. and w h i c h points are for Alloy 2205 (weld metals containing very little Cu). which permits examination of the effect of Cu in different solidification modes and FN ranges.CURVC 4 M n S "0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 IS 20 22 24 26 26 JO J2 34 56 IB 40 Chromium Equivoltnt • XCr + %Mo*l. Lake proposed adding a Cu term to the N i e q of the WRC-1988 diagram.Then virtually all of the Alloy 255 data points w o u l d be above the 1:1 line of Fig. which permits accurate determination of the effect of Cu. and Ferree proposed a coefficient of 0. but there were little data for duplex compositions with low Cu for comparison. Potak and Sagalevich proposed a coefficient of 0. the fit (R-squared) is nearly the same as in the first regression. His data have a uniform distribution over the range of 0 to 4 % Cu. 6) developed data 1 ' D Alloy 1 1 1 1 1 100 80 60 o Alloy 255 2205 ' 1 s_ — O D / LL TD _CJ o • "5 o O o OD >o o Q ° n ^ o Jr^ — 40 20 n 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 Measured FN Fig. Lake (Ref. These data allow comparison of the calculated FN w i t h measured FN for ferritic-austenitic weld metals over a range of Cu. He found the effect of Cu on the N i e q to be linear and fairly uniform regardless of the location within the WRC-1988 diagram. 6) has shown that a coefficient for Cu will improve the accuracy for weld metals in which Cu is an important alloying element. with a very small standard error.5i\S*0. Using Lake's data as a basis. The good fit of the line in Fig. it is likely that any effect of Cu was statistically confounded with the FN effect. For various austenitic weld metals containing some ferrite. this is reproduced as Table 1.44 (Ref. One purpose of this paper is to examine the effect of Cu. indicating a bias.N (Alloy 2205) and 25Cr-5Ni-3Mo-2Cu-N (Alloy 255) duplex ferritic-austenitic weld metals.25 for Cu. As can be seen in Fig.30 to be multiplied by the % Cu in the weld metal. In the first.3 (Ref. If the contribution of Cu to the N i e q were omitted. This conclusion is supported by the Cu term that appeared in some of the analyses (on various subsets of the database) during the development of the WRC-1988 diagram. and there appears to be no clustering of points with or without Cu on either side of the 1:1 line. a Cu coefficient was sought.5 N i . These reports suggest the effect of Cu is significant and l__U should be considered when predicting FN. a second regression was performed in which the line was forced through the origin (intercept of zero). Hull has proposed a coefficient of 0. 2 — Data for the predicted vs. Kotecki (Ref. and each had a large uncertainty (Ref.3 M o . A coefficient for Cu in the N i e q of the Schaeffler or DeLong diagrams has been proposed by various researchers. this contribution to the N i e q amounted to a coefficient of 0. Further. 10). 4). measured FN values using a coefficient of 0.3% Cu). specifically for evaluation of the effect of Cu in the WRC-1 988 diagram.5 less than is given in Table 1. but the calculated coefficients for Cu differed widely. but no trend was evident. 9). In this second regression. During development of the WRC1988 diagram.25 to 0. The majority of the Cu data that was submitted were for weld metals of low-FN and low-Cu content (less than 0. For convenience. The data are then plotted in Fig. 2. Castro and deCadenet proposed a coefficient of 0. About 20 of the duplex ferritic-austenitic compositions included Cu above 1 % . measured FN for a series of compositions based on 2 2 C r . a nonzero intercept (constant) and a slope were permitted. the calculated Ni equivalent for every Alloy 255 weld metal would be about 0. calculated FN were performed on these data.Si XCb Fig.6 (Ref. and the slope is very close to 1. Two regressions of measured FN vs.

This WRC-1992 diagram is presented as Fig.72 27. of Observations 36 Degrees of Freedom 35 X Coefficient(s) 1. For some Cr e q and N i e q values beyond the lower limits of the FN lines in the WRC-1992 diagram. The graphical procedure is exactly the same as that used with the Schaeffler diagram.9.92 12. the WRC-1 992 diagram is more limited. The examples below illustrate the calculations. However.33 24.08 25.38 14.24 25. The Cr e q and N i e q for the E31 2-16 electrode allweld-metal composition (29.57 14.57 10.50.93 12.57 14.69 28.13 28.69 28.09 27.66 27. and described in the f o l l o w i n g paragraphs.69 25. martensite may be found in the weld metals. such weld metals were indicated below and to the left of a diagonal line — Fig.71 24.990919 Std Err of Y Est R Squared 0.24 11. Matlock and Olson (Ref.2 FN for this material. the FN prediction is only accurate for weld compositions (the compositions that result from mixing and dilution of the initial c o m positions) that fall within the bounds of the iso-FN lines (0 to 100 FN) drawn on the diagram.70 12.25 (%Cu) Measured Minus Calculated FN -2 -5 -11 4 -3 -8 4 9 -15 -7 -13 1 0 2 6 -8 9 4 11 3 -5 -10 -6 11 -7 4 0 8 12 -8 6 2 -5 17 11 1 Weld Number 9292-622 9276-999 9276-057 9276-014 9292-678 9276-998 9276-854 9292-650 9292-136 9276-056 9292-112R 9276-996 9292-109 9276-012 9276-013 9276-864 9276-984 9292-174 9276-997 9292-358 9292-137 9292-112 9292-203 9276-004 9292-231 9276-904 9276-863 9276-853 9292-161 9276-053 9276-817 9276-055 9276-844 9292-204 9276-054 9292-202 Type 255 2205 255 255 255 2205 2205 255 255 255 255 2205 2205 255 255 2205 2205 255 2205 255 255 255 255 255 255 2205 2205 2205 255 255 2205 255 2205 2205 255 255 CT e q Ni e q 15.023495 martensite. Example 1 : Overlay of AISI 1050 steel with AWS A5.49 28. FN Calculated by WRC-88 Diagram. quite suitable and useful for estimating ferrite content in these weld metals. Although Ferrite Numbers do not exist for weld deposits of low Cr eq and N i e q . 12 Nieq + 0.the N i e q of the WRC-1 988 diagram is.1 9 9 2 Diagram Whereas the Schaeffler diagram offers predictions for Cr eq from 0 to 40 and N i e q from 0 to 32.0 and 11.71 29.54 14. except that the new N i e q includes a Cu term. Because of the differing effects of Mn in the t w o temperature ranges. While the extended axes allow a wide range of initial compositions to be located.938617 Std Err of Coef.44 10.30 13.46 12.88 13. The Cr e q and N i e q for the AISI 1050 steel (0.81 12. 0. In contrast to the Schaeffler diagram.938712 R Squared 0. and the extended axes of the diagram allow visualization of the concept.769152 36 No. The boundaries of the FN lines were determined by the extent of the database. of Observat ons Degrees of Freedom 34 X Coefficient(s) 0.663357 Constant 7.03 28.24 12.39 10. the positions of such alloys can still be located by extrapolated Cr eq and N i e q units on the WRC-1 992 diagram. it is not possible to include a single line bounding martensite-containing weld metals on the WRC-1992 diagram.78 9. 4) and the point corresponding to the E31 2-1 6 composi- W E L D I N G RESEARCH SUPPLEMENT I 173-s . This procedure is illustrated in Figs. Therefore.29 13.08 27. Dilution calculations are based on linear combinations of the compositions.62 15.61 25.0 and 1 7.36 13.14 28. In the Schaeffler diagram. respectively) result in a predicted 88.20 12. we propose a new WRC-1992 diagram which is exactly the same as the WRC1 988 diagram. at least to a first approximation.63 23. Mn does not appear in the N i e q of the WRC-1 992 diagram because it is not found to affect significantly the high-temperature transformation of ferrite to austenite.61 25.32 12.56 29.78 9. Data from Ref.001287 Std Err of Coef.70 28.79 23.74 12.02 28. 13) show that Mn stabilizes austenite with respect to low-temperature transformation to Table 1—Measured FN vs.99 10.94 11.18 27. considering Cr e q from 1 7 to 31 and N i e q from 9 to 1 8. The second purpose of this paper is to demonstrate how the axes of the WRC1992 diagram can be extended to predict the FN for dissimilar metal joints.69 25. and extension of the straight FN isopleths into the adjacent Cr eq and N i e q regions could result in erroneous predictions.70 29. respectively) do not permit an FN calculation for this material. 1. over at least as broad a range as covered by the Schaeffler diagram.03 11.81 15.08 25.55 24.95 25. 0.36 13.70 14.088187 Regression: Measured vs.53 25. 4 and 5. the more recent findings of Self. If the Cr eq and N i e q for each composition is plotted in Fig.43 27.66 12.4 Class E312-16 electrode. Table 2 lists typical plate composition and all-weld-metal composition produced with this electrode. 4 and a line is drawn between the point corresponding to the AISI 1 050 composition (Point A in Fig.32 26.36 12. 3.765457 No.81 12. Calculated FN 3. Calculated FN Constant 0 Std Err of Y Est 7.57 16.19 29.19 Regression: Measured vs. Extension of the W R C .33 16.75 28.66 Calculated FN 36 39 46 32 39 46 J6 33 57 51 58 45 46 45 43 57 41 46 42 50 58 63 60 45 65 56 61 54 52 81 69 73 81 71 77 99 Measured FN 34 34 35 36 36 38 40 42 42 44 45 46 46 47 49 49 50 50 53 53 53 53 54 56 58 60 61 62 64 73 75 75 76 88 88 100 28.25 28.

3 (9.45 3. and a 17.059 1. must lie along the line from Point G to Point F in Fig. the root pass weld would lie 30% of the distance along the line from Point G to Point F. Any mixture of these t w o base metals will lie along the line connecting Point D to Point E.60 and 1 4. Ni e q (C) = 0.00) + 0.004 Cr e q 0.2 ASTM A36 0.004 0. The root pass weld metal.40 0.60 29. 5 as Point D (A36) and Point E (304).60 0.7 (14. tion (Point B in Fig. 5.3 FN. which would be expected to result in a crackfree root pass in this joint.5 (12.7(29.06 29. 15% AISI 304.83 and 12.45) = 9.50 Mn % 0.90 0.93 0. consisting of the E309L-1 6 electrode and equal parts of the two base metals.049 20. However.5 Cr eq (D) + 0.30 13.5 (7.3 Cr eq (A) = passes w i l l contain even more ferrite than the first pass.51 19.04 13. 3 — WRC-1992 diagram. so all subsequent 174-s I M A Y 1992 .60)+ 0. If each base metal contributes equally to the weld metal.90 88.03 1.05 1.5 Ni eq (F) = 0.95. but they w i l l be closer to Point B than is Point C.77) = 13. Higher dilution.40 12.00)4-0.4 FN w o u l d be predicted for that electrode. If one base metal contributed more than the other to the joint Creq(F) = 0.060 1. In any case.5 Creq(E) (0.83 12. only the final weld metal need be plotted on the WRC-1992 diagram to obtain a weld metal FN prediction.34 0.6 FN. 24 + 26 Cr eq = Cr • Mo 0.70 0. Mathematically. The Cr e q and N i e q for the A36 steel (0.00 7.20 E309L-16 All-Weld-Metal 0.20 0. The Cr eq and N i e q of Point C correspond to 4. then all possible mixtures of these two materials must lie along this line.45.39 4. In shielded metal arc welding. 5.7 Cr eq (B) 4. plotting all the data 0. The Cr e q and N i e q for the AISI 304 steel (18.20 0. The lever rule is then used to estimate the position of the weld metal.00 8. indicated in Fig.58 WRC-1988 FN - 0.3 Ni e q (A) 0.08)4-0. respectively) result in a calculated 3.043 20.7 Ni eq (G) + 0.3 Cr eq (F): 0. The Cr e q and N i e q for these two base metals are shown in Fig. or excess dilution from the A36 side of the joint. which indicates that the weld pass w i l l have sufficient FN to avoid fissuring (Ref.04 Ni e q (H) = 0.60 4. 4).60 0.7 (24. respectively) do not permit an FN calculation for this material. 5. This is shown as Point H in Fig. Any additional passes.00 and 7.80 0. the average base metal contribution to the weld pool would lie along this line.43 20.08. located 3 0 % of the distance from Point B to Point A in Fig.Table 3 --Joining 304 to A36 with w w -•_-_ Table 2—Cladding of AISI 1050 with E312-16 AISI E312-16 1050 All-V 0.60 24.90)+ 0.5 Ni eq (D) 0 5 Nieq(E) = 0. The all-weld-metal Cr e q and N i e q (24.0.38 0. A weld pass of E31 2-1 6 with 3 0 % dilution from AISI 1050 steel w o u l d lie at a Point C. w i l l also lie along the line between Point B and Point A. this can be calculated as Cr eq (C) = 0.7 Nb (due to unequal plate thickness of a complex joint design. 4). then the overall base metal contribution is given by the midpoint of the line between Point D and Point E.39 Point H corresponds to 4. The calculations to reach Point H are shown below.47) = 20. and the weld cladding should be crack-free.2 FN for this material.3 Ni eq (F) = 0.02 Cr % Ni % N % 0.83) = 9.02 0. It is not necessary actually to plot the calculated Cr e q and N i e q for the base metals and electrode on the extended WRC-1 992 diagram in order to obtain useful information. Example 2: Joining AISI 304 Stainless Steel to ASTM A36 with E309L-16 Electrode.58) 13.06 24.192 0.5 (18.4 70% E309L-16.40 18.08 0. overlapping part of this first pass. respectively) for the E309L-1 6 electrode is shown as Point G in Fig. After calculation of the Cr e q and N i e q . 4. then Point F would slide along this line proportionately toward the greater contributor.2 30% Dilution Cladding 0.3(0.47 0. 5 as Point F.7(11.77 Cr eq (H) : 0. could reduce the ferrite content and increase the likelihood of cracking.30 6.30.15 0.04 18.60 14.3(17.3 (9. typical dilution is 3 0 % .6 Material C % Mn % Si% Cr % Ni % Mo % N % Cr eq Ni e q WRC-1988 FN AISI 304 0.89 10.00 11.3 Material C % 0.75 9. 15% A36 0.60.00) = 20.20 0.95 17.00 Ni e q 17. Table 3 lists typical plate compositions and all-weld-metal composition from the electrode.30 Si % 0. for example).7 Cr eq (G) + 0.95)+ 0. Again assuming normal 3 0 % base metal dilution w i t h the shielded metal arc process.7 Ni e q (B + 0.08 — — — — g" 10 22 Fig.

7 Nb Fig. sy !<•* WW / 1 V 7 YY mm Mm 5 ^s* 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Cr.s 7 Y A '///. 4 — Illustration of dilution calculation in Example 1. 16 17 18 19 20 M o • 0. Ijt 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Cr eq = Cr • Mo • 0. WELDING RESEARCH SUPPLEMENT I 175-s . 'V / /.. .eq = Cr Fig. 5 — Illustration of dilution calculation in Example 2. ^ YY/% ^YYv Y^ ^ v> '3' nf^ ^5 ^ r/jnf&j / / /*.7 Nb 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 18 17 16 15 3 o / A t y / / AV fa / '/ % o C M 14 13 /' / S / AF / U / FA yv Y/J / m P¥A YY^Y '46 VYY/Y ty '4< _-_^a V^ <£ ^ y) Yfr0 ^ % % ^ < " F YY o \i.

00 176-s I MAY 1992 CD C\J no gs'o • N os + o ge + IN = CD CM oo O CN «fr CN CN CN * II CO CN O CO *> + o s. The FN predict that are drawn o n the d agr am. 6.— WRC-19 FN lines (0 to 100 and extension of tt is only diagram.2t o T£ *- 0j •si * cura ons. Th nes could result i n erron 'Ol s predi . QJ -° c >< CD Oj t J •£ tb u o Fig.

« 0 c- .c o c M r i o c n o o T .t o i o ^ j . ™ -5 x 8 *£ •s a £ £ .T - tO - LO CO C\J t- 1— T— ^ T— T - ^ - ^ W # « _ no S20 • N 02 • 0 9C • !N = b3 !N WELDING RESEARCH SUPPLEMENT I 177-s WRC.c -T o 03 -c 52: o ^ •*• c S Oj | 8 5 3 O cu c 0) o c o '"fl LT) o s OJ ^ &^ » C I'C •£? o .Q "5 ^ ^ S JS c cu ^5 & m <X) O t o £+ lO • S o '•= -S O n cr HI »- w > -=: ra o o Tj -S ded scale n is only •am The c .0 U o •— -c 3 j-2 t.2 =o While sitions 7 were o c o.o CNJ c UJ S-^^ ra Q. ^ c =c D .c ic cc o o r .u U "S u -a "ri lib -j-s r CO a O OJ *.co o CO en oj co CM CM C M C N J rvj wi sol TD -C ro Al M -TjO o _ CM .1992 diag ons to be I cate 100 F N)th tare 1 .3 ° "O €*-g xes a the thee * i 5 o -Q oa — X -a 5 -S T . *?J{ c .

00 for U. Kotecki. M „ and Sagalevich. M c C o w a n . The recommendations provided by nuclear utilities and industry were combined with the independent considerations and recommendations of the PVRC Subcommittees and Steering Committees. A. 7. Matlock. Self. Publication of this document was sponsored by the Steering Committee on the Review of ASME Nuclear Codes and Standards of the Pressure Vessel Research Council. D.C u c o n tents. U. 1969. T. L. D. Welding Research Council. Project responsibility was placed with the Pressure Vessel Research Council and activity initiated in January 1988. C. Patent 3. and deCadenet. Potak. T o f a c i l i t a t e t h e use o f this n e w d i a g r a m . D. Avt. O l s o n . H u l l . D. Figs. Weldability of Materials — Proceedings of the Materials Weldability Symposium. New York. 1973.S. 1974. Lake. R. C. Paper presented at AWS Annual Meeting.460.1 9 9 2 d i a g r a m a n d an e x t e n d e d v e r s i o n for d i s s i m i l a r metal w e l d p r e d i c tions. Siewert. W e also offer the d i a g r a m o n ext e n d e d axes ( s i m i l a r t o t h e range of t h e Schaeffler diagram) for i m p r o v e d pred i c t i o n of FN for dissimilar w e l d and cladding applications. 345 E. 1 984. 8. N. A. L.K.S. Ohio. 6. A.. F. Structural diagram for stainless steels as applied to cast metal and metal deposited during welding. A. M c C o w a n . L. and $10. Ferrite number prediction to 100 FN in stainless steel weld metal. 1 990.00 per copy. W .o n t h e d i a g r a m is useful i n t h a t it g i v e s a clearer p i c t u r e o f the s i t u a t i o n .b a s e a l l o y s . 9.. 1988. Free machining austenitic stainless steel.. so that o n e c a n a p p r e c i a t e t h e risks o f h i g h e r than expected dilution. T. Stainless steel weld metal: Prediction of ferrite content.1 9 9 2 d i a g r a m f o r t h e FN p r e d i c t i o n of stainless steel w e l d s . It is reasonable to expect that other c o m b i n a t i o n s c o u l d be f o u n d that w o u l d p r o d u c e w e l d metal c o m p o s i t i o n s f a l l i n g w i t h i n the l i m i t s o f the d i a g r a m . Welding Metallurgy of Stainless and Heat Resisting Steels. 5. Welding Journal 67(1 2):289-s to 298-s.00 for overseas. ). J. J.. Cambridge. the W R C . 1949. 12. 11. Delta ferrite and martensite formation in stainless steels. postage and handling. New York. 2. to e x a m ine dissimilar metal joints i n v o l v i n g n i c k e l . 1974. ASM International. Orders should be sent with payment to the Welding Research Council. U. B. 3. L 1988. Schaeffler. Conclusions W e propose a n e w diagram. plus $5. Ferrite measurement and control in duplex stainless steel welds. The price of WRC Bulletin 370 is $30. Castro. Kotecki. and Olson. Welding Journal 63(9):282-s to 288-s. D. A.939.. 1 3. 178-s I M A Y 1992 .Y. 47th St. Constitution diagram for stainless steel w e l d metal. and Olson. WRC Bulletin 370 February 1992 Recommendations Proposed by the PVRC Committee on Review of ASME Nuclear Codes and Standards Approved by the PVRC Steering Committee The ASME Board on Nuclear Codes and Standards (BNCS) determined in 1986 that an overall technical review of existing ASME nuclear codes and standards was needed. October. Cambridge University Press. NY 10017. D. Svarka (5):10—13. but most importantly by the need to capture a pool of knowledge and "lessons learned" from the existing generation of technical experts with codes and standards background. N. It i m p r o v e s t h e FN p r e d i c t i o n a c c u r a c y f o r stainless steel w e l d m e t a l s t h a t h a v e s i g n i f i c a n t Cu c o n t e n t s . Metal Progress 56(11 ):680-680B. Siewert. Prediction of austenitic w e l d metal microstructure and properties. Room 1301. A. L. 4. The decision to initiate this study was reinforced by many factors. F. Welding journal 52(5):193-s to 203-s. ). D. J. |. N. Materials Park.. Effect of Cu on stainless steel w e l d metal ferrite content. 1989. T. International Institute of Welding Document ll-C-834-88. C. Verification of the NBS-CSM ferrite diagram. 1972. 1990. 6 a n d 7 a r e c o p i e s of t h e W R C . K„ and Olson. WRC Bulletin 342. It is also possible to e x t e n d the W R C 1992 diagram to higher N i e q . DeLong.. The direction was vested in a Steering Committee which had overview of six subcommittees. Ferrite in austenitic stainless steel weld metal. 10. Welding Journal 53(7):273-s to 286-s. For w e l d s w i t h l o w .1 9 8 8 diagram. 1985. Ferree. its p r e d i c t i o n s are not s i g n i f i c a n t l y different f r o m those of the W R C . J. References 1. Welding journal 64(10):281 -s to 295-s. E. An evaluation of austenitic FeMn-Ni weld metal for dissimilar metal welding.