SUPPLEMENT TO THE WELDING JOURNAL, JULY 1973 Sponsored by the American Welding Society and the Welding Research Council

The Ferrite Content of Austenitic Stainless Steel Weld Metal
The effect of nitrogen pickup in GTAW and GMA W and the need for better correlation between calculated and measured ferrite content leads to a revised constitution diagram and an evaluation of experimental and statistical error.

ABSTRACT. The possibility of nitrogen incursion into the arc and weld pool must be considered in any application where austenitic stainless weld metal ferrite content is important. This is especially true in gas metal-arc welding (GMAW) and gas tungsten-arc welding (GTAW) where turbulence in the arc shielding gas flow can admit enough nitrogen to appreciably reduce the ferrite content of the deposit. Calculations of ferrite using filler metal chemistry and either the DeLong or Schaeffler diagrams will usually show a higher ferrite content than exists in the deposit, because nitrogen is picked up by the weld metal during welding. If the Schaeffler Diagram were the only calculation tool available the nitrogen-caused differences in ferrite between filler metal and weld metal would often be difficult to explain because Schaeffler did not include a factor for nitrogen in his diagram. However, use of the actual deposit analysis and the DeLong Diagram, which takes account of the strong austenitizing effect of nitrogen, can generally explain the significant differences observed when high nitrogen pickup has occurred. Knowledge of the effect of nitrogen and the magnetic measurement of weld deposit ferrite can be of significant help in qualifying GMAW and GTAW procedures and operators to minimize pickup of the element and thereby to provide consistent and acceptable weld metal ferrite. The DeLong Diagram has been revised to convert it to the WRC Ferrite Number system and to reflect information obtained in the study of the GTAW and GMAW deposits described in this paper. Comparisons between the calculated and the measured ferrite contents are made for both the Schaeffler and the revised DeLong Diagrams. On Types 308, 308L and 347 the diagrams are essentially equal in performance except where high nitrogen levels are involved, in which case the DeLong Diagram is better. For the more highly alloyed Types 316, 316L and 309 the Schaeffler Diagram understates the ferrite content so the DeLong Diagram is better for these types. The sources and magnitudes of

W. T. DeLONG is Vice President and C. J. LONG is Welding Engineer, Teledyne McKay, York, Pennsylvania. Paper was presented at the 54th AWS Annual Meeting held in Chicago during April 2-6, 1973.

W E L D I N G R E S E A R C H S U P P L E M E N T ! 281-s

Background The Literature The effectiveness of the presence of a small but controlled amount of delta ferrite in preventing cracking of austenitic stainless steel weld d e posits is well known. 2 which provided a tool for calculating weld deposit ferrite c o n t e n t b a s e d on c h e m i c a l analysis by graphically combining effects of the austenitizers nickel. it is possible to supercool through the t e m p e r a t u r e zone in w h i c h delta ferrite f o r m s and to transform d i rectly into austenite. An expanded portion of the Schaeffler Diagram is shown as .. However. the etchant selected and the degree of etch have been shown to be among the several variables in procedure and technique which can influence rather s u b stantially the values obtained. Similarly. this diagram gave a figure for ferrite content which was stated to be accurate to ± 4 volume percent (hereinafter referred to as %) ferrite for many of the c o m mon austenitic weld deposits under cooling conditions present in field weldments. the final amount of delta ferrite in virtually all weld metal depends only to a rather minor degree upon the cooling rate. which would result in a much higher percentage of ferrite in a Type 308 deposit. 1 — Schaeffler diagram several variables in the measurement and calculation of ferrite are considered. 318 and sometimes 316 and 316L and 317 and 317L. carbon and manganese and the ferritizers c h r o m i u m .EXPANDED SCHAEFFLER CONSTITUTION DIAGRAM FOR STAINLESS STEEL WELD METAL 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 x 27 28 CHROMIUM EQUIVALENT = £Cr+§Mo + 1. 308L. silicon and columbium. Types in which this effect is taken advantage of include among others 308. Allowances for receiving inspection are recomm e n d e d to p r o v i d e adequate tolerances for variations in ferrite content between pads. Also. Practically speaking. most of the ferrite subsequently transforms to austenite as the de282-s I J U L Y 1 973 posit cools through a temperature range just below the delta ferrite region. besides being c u m b e r s o m e . In cooling from the molten state austenitic stainless weld metal of normal carbon content solidifies first as a mixture of delta ferrite and austenite. m o l y b d e n u m .5 x-g-Si + 0. Metallographic e x a m i n a t i o n of the d e p o s i t c a n provide an indication of the approximate ferrite content in terms of area "rjCb distribution. 1 In 1949 Schaeffler published his Constitution Diagram For Stainless Steel Weld Metal. the ferrite does not instantaneously transform.e. for example. The transformation is time-dependent — i. as well as the overall variation between them. Measured ferrite is r e c o m m e n d e d over calculated for specification purposes. however. but does so progressively over a short period of time — and theoretically the transformation could be avoided almost completely if the deposit could be instantly quenched from the just-frozen state to black heat.5 Fig. The amount of ferrite in stainless weld deposits can be determined in any of several ways. such a m e t h o d requires considerable care to be sure that the section or sections studied give a true picture of the volumetric ferrite distribution. 347. if the cooling rate from the molten state is rapid enough. 309.

For a given specimen. 1. the Ferrite Number. rather accurately known.10 The second was that too many independently calibrated magnetic instruments and/or curves to be used with such instruments had evolved over the years. but upon magnetic determinations of ferrite content of over 600 weld metal pads by use of a Magne-Gage calibrated as described in DeLong's 1956 paper. 2 — DeLong diagram W E L D I N G RESEARCH S U PPLE M E NT | 283-s .10 This WRC calibration procedure includes the use of the term Ferrite Number (FN) instead of the term percent ferrite.5 X %Cb Fig.S. Simpkinson5 has shown that different particle sizes of iron in bakelite. this diagram has been widely accepted and very useful because calculated ferrite is rather easily determined. and from 7 to 19% on samples which we would rate as 10%. which measures the magnetic attraction between the weld metal and a permanent magnet. The DeLong Diagram was based not upon metallographic examination of welds. Many publications78-9 showed that different magnetic measuring instruments or different calibrations of those instruments did produce different ferrite readings on a given specimen. The first was that no scientifically accurate method of precisely establishing the quantity of ferrite present in various unknowns had been proposed and broadly accepted. 1973 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 CHROMIUM EQUIVALENT = %Cr + %Mo + 1. and substantially improved the agreement between the predicted and measured values for covered electrode deposits of the more highly alloyed grades.1-7-89 Standardization of magnetic measuring instrument calibration in the U. The variations were traceable to two primary problems. DeLong revised January. has recently been accomplished by the High Alloys Committee of the Welding Research Council through the Advisory Subcommittee on Welding Stainless Steels. The modification increased the amount of ferrite predicted over that predicted by the Schaeffler Diagram. as was the Schaeffler Diagram. These readings could range from 3 to 9% on samples which we would rate as 5%. The DeLong Diagram had improved accuracy. 316 and 317 at normal nitrogen levels. A more direct measuring technique is the use of an appropriate magnetic measuring instrument such as an Aminco-Brenner Magne-Gage. stated to be ±2% ferrite. Of course to use either the Schaeffler or the DeLong Diagram the chemistry of the weld deposit must be 'Figure 2 as presented has been revised to show the WRC Ferrite Numbers and also to incorporate the revisions discussed later in this paper. represents a CONSTITUTION DIAGRAM FOR STAINLESS STEEL WELD METAL by William T.5 X %Si + 0. 2*) which added an austenitizing factor for nitrogen and modified the location of the lines for the more highly alloyed grades such as 309. produce substantially different calibration curves with a Magne-Gage and its number 3 magnet. especially for deposits containing higher than normal nitrogen. particularly if it is 10 or less. In 1956 DeLong et al3 expanded on Schaeffler's work and published a modified Constitution Diagram For Stainless Weld Metal (Fig.3 There has in the past been significant controversy in welding circles as to whether what welding people call 5% ferrite is that amount or close to it or is significantly more or less. or different orientations of iron flakes in bakelite. Use of a properly calibrated MagneGage has been recommended by DeLong3 and others 456 and the instrument is widely used for measuring ferrite in weld deposits.Fig. often with appreciable conflict with one another in the ferrite values reported.

S.S. and the subsequent use of the specimens as s t a n d a r d s for c o n s t r u c t i o n of Magne-Gage calibration curves. Manufacture and Use of Covered Electrodes Fortunately from a practical viewpoint. 3 t h i s is e s sentially 4 to 10 on the WRC Ferrite Number scale. we assumed a minimum change in analysis from electrode to deposit and about 0. substantially below both the spread found in users' calibrations and the total world-wide spread found in the survey.S. 2 and Table 1 both present a comparison of the percentage figures formerly used by our l a b o r a t o r y with the equivalent Ferrite Number for each.0 11. often from 4 % to 9% or from 5% to 15%.0 8. the a m o u n t of ferrite measured in such deposits with a Magne-Gage is reasonably close to the amount calculated f r o m the DeLong Diagram. including the government. for example. Fig. The result has been that few p u r c h a s e s p e c i f i c a t i o n s for bare stainless filler metals have in the past included any ferrite requirement. we used ferrite calculated from bare electrode chemistry by the DeLong Diagram to predict whether the ferrite in a standard ferrite pad would fall within the desired range.7 15.9.5 9.10 | n V j e w 0 f t h e WRC procedure we have presented all experimental data in this paper in terms of FN and much of the discussion herein is also in FN terms.S. Ferrite in G T A W a n d G M A W Deposits — the Nitrogen P r o b l e m When we first considered the MILE-19933D ferrite requirements years ago.0 12. because as mentioned above the Magne-Gage calibration curves have generally been established based on the DeLong or Schaeffler Diagrams. most major U.0 16.2 g o o d average of the ferrite percentage figures which would be determined for the specimen by present U.0 New FN Same as old % 7. covered welding electrode producers have set up their practices in electrode manufacture so that the differences between them have not prevented the practical use of ferrite in the general range of 4 to 9% to provide crack-free weld deposits. might meet the MIL-E-19933D requirements when prepared by one welder but might be outside those requirements when prepared under nominally equivalent conditions by another welder.0 10. a study FERRITE MEASURED IN THIS AREA . given a heat with 10% calculated ferrite.S.1 12. If converted from our prior practice. and world methods of measuring delta ferrite. based on round robins conducted by the WRC Advisory Subcommittee and the International Institute of Welding Subcommission IIQ 8.c o n t a i n i n g austenitic stainless types produce undiluted weld metal containing a particular range of ferrite. Government Specification MIL-E-19933D.0 9. normally skilled semiautomatic welders following the MIL p r o c e d u r a l r e q u i r e m e n t s could produce deposits containing anywhere from 0 to 9% Magne-Gage ferrite.0 13. It should be remembered that despite the fact that not all producers have agreed precisely on the percent ferrite in any given weld deposit. For reference.Table 1 — Conversion — Old McKay % Ferrite (as measured with a Magne-Gage) to WRC Ferrite Number (FN) Old %F Up to 6. the agreement has been close enough so that these widely used tools for d e t e r m i n i n g calculated and/or measured weld metal ferrite have been eminently successful in providing crack-free stainless steel weld deposits for 20 years or more.0 7. One exception to this approach is U.2 8. which requires that undiluted weld metals of the 308. 3) using a calibrated Magne-Gage. 3 — Standard ferrite pad 284-s I J U L Y . the apparent feeling of many users is that when the chemical requirements are met the deposit will be satisfactory from the ferrite standpoint. 302 OR 304 STAINLESS PLATE. Our experience indicated that it was difficult to produce GMAW deposits with ferrite contents within the predicted ranges. This reasonable level of agreement has been attained in part through the interchange of weld metal specimens with specific assigned ferrite values. for example.0 14. in predicting. Also. 5 FN of each other at a 5 Ferrite Number level and ± 1 FN of each other at a 10 Ferrite Number level.5 per cent loss in ferrite. Under such circumstances a deposit from an ER 308L electrode with 14% calculated ferrite. using the covered electrode deposit chemistry. Use of Bare Stainless Electrodes and Rods In the bare stainless area. as determined with either one of the abovementioned constitution diagrams or a Magne-Gage or other specified m a g netic measuring instrument such as a Severn Ferrite Indicator. partly because variations in GTAW and GMAW procedures have made it difficult to standardize in a manner which will produce ferrite readings agreeable to a m a j o r i t y of f a b r i cators.4 13. 309 and 347 families contain from 4 to 9% ferrite as measured on the top surface of a standard pad (Fig. so that a deposit produced by a trained welder in the electrode manufacturer's test lab according to standardized procedures will be generally equivalent to one produced by a similarly trained welder in the purchaser's facility according to the same p r o c e d u r e s . and in part through use of either the DeLong or Schaeffler Constitution Diagrams. the latter assumption being based on our feeling that cooling rates in the low-mass GMAW standard pads were somewhat slower than the cooling rates typical of most production welds.8 11.MIN AS J WELDEDE 8 WELD LAYERS (PASSES) MINIMUM BUILDUP- jfMIN r»-1 APPROX - -TYPE 30I. This approach to ferrite control in covered electrode stainless weld metal has been successful primarily because welding practices and techniques with covered electrodes have over the years become generally reasonably uniform. These attempts have not been entirely successful. Because of the above described difficulties in predicting and reproducing ferrite measurements. -3"APPROX- -T^L 1 973 Fig. require in some of their purchase s p e c i f i c a t i o n s that c o v e r e d electrodes of Types 308 and 308L and other f e r r i t e . who participated in the program were within approximately ± 0 . Many users. attempts have been made to provide deposit ferrite control similar to that used with covered electrodes. Round robin data 8 indicate that the major producers in the U. m a n u f a c t u r e r s . which generally corresponds to the practices of most U.

074 .52 1.9 9. with primary emphasis on changes in nitrogen content between filler metal and deposit.43 .029 .014 . also produced Magne-Gage readings showing ferrite of less than 1 FN. Pure Argon Shielding Gas Ferrite number. Thus.54 . Item 2). calculated ferrite on the repeat pad was 9. and in some instances less than 1 FN. Item 3.43 21. Heat 465 465 465 055 055 055 Form .057 .3 — 12. 2 and the Magne-Gage calibration method established by the WRC 10 as the basis for all of our ferrite values. Nitrogen was emphasized because we have found on covered electrode deposits that if the ferrite of the deposit is substantially below our aim.161 .17 21. 1.52 1. This pickup is unfortunately not visually obvious during or after welding because the deposit appearance does not change significantly. Based on our prior experience with covered electrodes we would not have been surprised at a difference of up to ± 2 .42 Si . The Type 309 experience and additional more recent studies with other types have confirmed that nitrogen p i c k u p occurs all too readily in GMAW and GTAW.6 2. analysis of the deposit for nitrogen.016 Mn 1. Table 3 — Ferrite and Chemistry Variations from Electrode to Weld Deposit — Spray Transfer G MAW — . w h i c h w e a s s u m e d w o u l d be equivalent to the deposit chemistry.62 1.019 . the pad chemistry. to a lesser degree.016 .14 . although average changes in other elements were minor.48 Spray Transfer GMAW — 1/16 In. whether calculated from chemistry or measured on the actual weld deposit. comprising preparation of a standard ferrite pad with a sample of the electrode under conditions closely matching those used by the customer. calculated' 3 ' measured 11.4 0.00 21. ER 309 Mo .95 10. the ferrite contents are given in terms of Ferrite Number (FN).045 electr.b) {a) Revised DeLong Diagram (Fig. as shown in Table 2.38 Cr 24. ER 308L Electrode. noted that M a g n e . we have used the DeLong Constitution Diagram shown in Fig. This is acceptable from a cracking viewpoint.74 1. special care C . The only means of detecting nitrogen pickup are measurement of the deposit ferrite level. the weld metal nitrogen was more than twice that in the electrode (see Table 2.12 N .1 FN and the Magne-Gage ferrite was 6 FN.60 .020 .66 13.90 9. Welder 1 deposit Welder 2 deposit 1/16 electr. These precautions decreased the nitrogen pickup to an acceptably low level.12 . The standard pad design (Fig. however. The reason is that nitrogen is 30 times as strong an austenitizer as nickel.224 calculated^) measured 14.60 20.070 Ferrite number. The nitrogen level was high enough to reconcile the calculated and the measured ferrite within the normal spread of ±2.0 (a) Revised DeLong Diagram (Fig. Chemical analysis of the undiluted weld metal from the ferrite pad revealed that.6 0 15.G a g e c h e c k s of their d e posits showed ferrite of less than 5 FN. It c o n cerned the ferrite content of semiautomatic inert GMAW spray transfer deposits p r e p a r e d with 1/16 in. (b) Difference between measured and calculated felt at the time to be due primarily to cooling rate effects.08 Ni 10. Because the data showed that our welder's procedures allowed nitrogen incursion to the arc zone.52 .6 W 9.0 10. 2) was undertaken to determine the effects of several variables on the Magne-Gage ferrite of GMAW and GTAW deposits. As previously noted. although not from the viewpoint of good agreement of measured FN with the FN calculated from either the electrode chemistry or.058 Mr. The customer. Weld deposit.5 0.112 . who was ex- p e r i e n c e d and k n o w l e d g e a b l e in stainless steel fabrication.045 and 1/16 in. Our results indicated that it was not the electrode but probably the customer's welder's procedure which was the problem.48 13.5 FN which we expected.42 9.063 .62 1.069 .0 . we had him repeat the test taking special care to hold a short arc and a short gas cupto-work distance.018 .56 Cr 20. Weld deposit.73 1.Table 2 — Ferrite and Chemistry Variations from Electrode to Weld Deposit Electrode: 99% Argon — 1 % Oxygen Shielding Gas Item 1.55 20. in spite of the customer's experience.1 0 — 7.8 1.81 Ni 13. 3) is good from an economics viewpoint but is very exposed from the viewpoint of air intrusion. Our own direct studies were also in part due to a customer complaint received in the early 1960's. first check 3.15 10.1 6. they still had a welder whose practices were apparently poor in GMAW of austenitic stainless steel. according to the DeLong Diagram.63 1. and a very short arc must be maintained.31 .063 . we were unable to explain a drop from 10 FN calculated to as low as 1 FN measured.14 N .47 . Welder 1 deposit Welder 2 deposit C . the p r o b l e m is invariably t r a c e a b l e to e x c e s s i v e n i t r o g e n pickup in the deposit due to somewhat lax welding procedures.10 10. In this study. say from 2 to 6 or more FN below.08 23. 2).54 Si . or weld metal cracking if the ferrite is too low and the joint restrained.61 24. It is well understood that nitrogen pickup has a very strong influence on weld metal ferrite content.56 . ER309 filler metal from a heat which showed 10 FN as calculated using the electrode chemistry and the DeLong Diagram. Our routine handling of the c o m plaint. so that pickup of very small amounts in the weld metal disproportionately lowers the 285-s WELDING RESEARCH SUPPLEMENT! .319 . Electrode 2. 5 FN from the value calculated from bare electrode chemistry.

08% nitrogen is picked up by the deposit.2 FN No. 2.3 FN. Ferrite was measured on all pads with a calibrated Magne-Gage and calculated from chemistry using the DeLong Diagram. and their effect on the ferrite would be quite low.25% Approx. welder technique can bring about loss of ferrite.005% 0 combines 0.6 FN Schaeffler 1.8 2. The solubility limit of nitrogen in austenitic stainless steel is in excess of 0.015% Mn = . This table sets forth the changes in nitrogen that occurred between bare electrode and deposit in experiments with two heats of ER308L filler metal. one reliable and rapid means of detecting substantial increases in nitrogen is a comparison of the weld metal ferrite content as m e a s u r e d using a p r o p e r l y calibrated instrument with the theoretical ferrite content as calculated from the filler metal chemistry with the DeLong Diagram. For example. B. calculated fe r r i t e l o s s ( a ) range 1.012/.2 change in Cr Eq DeLongla) 0. Welder Technique.007 Cr Eq.65% 0. and we therefore had the welder run a repeat pad and asked him to concentrate on maintaining optimum gas shielding. ferrite content.022 . would be negligible. a heat of 1/16 in.3 FN.3 FN.004% C = .25% and sets a m a x i m u m on the amount of nitrogen that can be picked up during welding. who had long experience in stainless steel GMAW.9 FN Schaeffler 0.1 FN 1. Weld Metal Nitrogen Pickup — Type 308L — Using Skilled Welder Under Excellent Laboratory Conditions N pick up n weld m etal % range . either through turbulence or through holding an excessively long gas cupto-work distance. chromium and perhaps carbon.05% nitrogen base in the filler metal adds 6. or 0. ER309 rod with a DeLong-calculated ferrite of 15 FN was used to prepare a standard GTAW test pad by one of our skilled welders who had not previously been trained to avoid nitrogen pickup.7% 0.005. This emphasizes the importance of the right kind of experience in minimizing nitrogen pickup in GMAW stainless deposits. since the source of nitrogen is air. c hange in ferrite cc ntentfor + 0.0 FN for the heat.005% O combines 0. and c o n sequently the change in the calculated ferrite level. 2 Ni Eq or vice-versa DeLong ( a ) 1. an extra 0. 0 1 % 0.016 Approx. which would combine with the oxidizable elements silicon.015% Cr = 0.7/1.5 FN 0.018/.015% Mn to form 0.02% 0. a ) Schaeffler 0. let it be ass u m e d t h a t e n o u g h air b r e a k s through the protective gas shield so that 0.019/.9 1.7 1.5 1.020 . Poor technique. This is undoubtedly the major influencing variable. however. so it can be seen that nitrogen pickup can potentially eliminate all ferrite from virtually all c o m mon austenitic deposits.3 Effects of Variables on Nitrogen Pickup Some of the most important variables affecting nitrogen pickup and the extent of their effects are disc u s s e d in t h e f o l l o w i n g p a r a graphs.2 1. On the repeat pad the Magne-Gage ferrite was 16. to eliminate virtually all ferrite from the w e l d deposit.02% oxygen. a drop of 8. 0.4 to the Nickel Equivalent (Ni Eq) and will reduce the deposit ferrite level by as much as 8 FN. Note that except for nitrogen.8 FN 0. referring to Fig.25% 1. In GTAW also.005% O combines 0.0/1.014/. ferrite content.015%N = 1. allowed far less nitrogen pickup than Welder 2.9 1. which agrees very well with the calculated 15.35% 1.009% 0. whose experience had been primarily with C 0 2 .% O combines 0. 0. of tests 22 12 8 4 8 8 Table 5 — Changes in Calculated Ferrite Attributable to Changes of 0. This adds 2.2 change in Ni Eq D e L o n g .021 .6% Change in ferrite content for a ± 0. it is evident that any factor which decreases the effectiveness of the arc shield in GMAW or GTAW can cause significant loss of ferrite from that calculated using the f i l l e r m e t a l c h e m i s t r y to t h a t measured in the deposit. the small amount of additional slag or oxide so formed has no s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t on t h e appearance of the final weld. with MnO. Associated with this amount of nitrogen.0 . 0. in spite of the fact that he was a skilled semiautomatic welder. the deposit could be expected to pickup about 0. It should also be restated that exc e s s i v e n i t r o g e n p i c k u p is not ordinarily reflected in changed bead appearance or in the loss of oxidizable elements. can allow aufficient nitrogen pickup.021/.12 Ni Eq. semiautomatic GMAW using spray transfer with pure argon shielding was used to prepare all four weld pads according to the requirements of MIL-E-19933D.004% C to form 0.6 1. he did not use the proper techniques. 2. Even the assumed carbon loss would only be equivalent to an increase of about 0. 069 .034 . Welder 1.025 . rounded off: A. C.6% 0. If we assume that one fourth of the oxygen.7 FN 0.005% combines with each element. These losses in silicon.6 avg.6 FN 0. Fig. 024 .012/.4/2.20% nitrogen added to a 0. As an example.027 .2 in Chromium and Nickel Equivalents at 21 Chromium Equivalent Cumul.7 1. FN or % 2 6 11 Change in ferrite content for a ± 0.015% Cr to form 0. 2.005% Si = 0. 286-s I J U L Y 1973 with SiOi. .65% 0.7 FN by Magne-Gage. D.02% .020 avg.0 to the Ni Eq on the DeLong Diagram and represents a theoretical loss of about 18 FN.036 . manganese.6 FN 0. Not recognizing the p r o b l e m . We have found that in virtually every similar case we have e n c o u n t e r e d .0/2. c h r o m i u m and m a n g a n e s e w o u l d hardly be noticeable on analysis.005% Si to form 0 .1/5.5/2.007 Ni Eq.2Cr Eq and . . the losses would be as follows. the deposit chemistry was very little changed from the electrode chemistry. with CrO.s h i e l d e d w e l d i n g using tubular electrodes. The individual loss of any of these would be so low that the change in their levels in the deposit.0 1. Also.1 1. arising either from inexperience or inattention. with CO. which is our normal practice when unexpectedly low ferrite results are obtained. Welder 2 did not recognize that his t e c h n i q u e was poor. t h e Magne-Gage ferrite of GTAW deposits can be brought within the normally expected range by the use of a Gun or torch GMAW gun A GMAW gun B GMAWgunC GMAW gun D GTAW torch E GTAW torch F (Gas lens) (a) Assuming 0.65% (a) Based on revised DeLong Diagram. Table 3 illustrates the effect that welder technique can have on deposit ferrite. equiv.026 . 0.4 FN 1.015 Cr Eq.Table 4 — Gun or Torch Design Vs. and as a result the pad checked at 6. Such a loss is not at all typical of GTAW.

040 2 .58/1.25 9.75/21.037/.052 Type ER308 Range Avg " ER347 Range Avg ER308L Range Avg ER309 Range Avg ER316 Range Avg.06 1.90/13.31 2.38/.56/1.68 19.0 Type GTAW process 309 308.066 .24 2.17/1.66/1.50/9.30 19. loss. of tests 23 56 14 36 8 14 1 9 C.05/.018 .19 2.60/1.024/.58 .23 19.22 N .46 .80 13.015/.60 9.028/.04/. heat.024 .019 .056 .24 2.02 1. because it involves low gas flow rates and thus relatively non-turbulent flow and because the filler metal is melted rather than trans- Table 8 — Average Carbon Losses and C Drresponding FN Gain from Filler Metal Analysis to Deposit Analysis No.020% was added to the filler metal nitrogen for GTAW pads and .48 23.046 2 .95 19.057 1.10/19.34 .061 1 1.40/TO.16 .68 1.GMAW Electrode — Chem cal Summary — 28 Heats No. — — .001 .15 2.047/. due to the low average changes in these types..007 .014 .057/.030 (a) Excluding one at 0.64/1. FN gain 1.17/1.027/.011/. W E L D I N G RESEARCH S U P P L E M E N T ! 287-s .19 .26 — .82A88 .96 12. C.67 1.30 20.35/.58 Si .024 .20 12.93 1.91 18.058 .34 . avg.70 — 2.80/13.55 .GTAW Rod — Chemical Summary — 71 Heats No.09/2.05/.059 .28/19.00 12.63 .016/.036 .91 .82/.44 20.48 (a) Cr 20.87 — — — — — — — — — .059 . particularly gas nozzles. Optimum welder technique for both GMAW and GTAW includes holding arc length and gas cup-to-work distances as short as possible.20 .17 .44 20. % . 50 .81 1. ER309 15 Range Avg.5 1.051 .7 0.21/2.05/. of heats 10 .70/24.10/21.79 1.047/.029 .030 Cb 27 ER308 Range Avg.23 18.6/2.042 .75 Mo .019/.31 19.44/. 316L 309 308.64 .024 — 1.75/20.07 .031 . ER316L Range Avg c Mn Si Cr Ni Mo N Cb — — .029 .000 Approx.039/.49 — .80 20.061 .16 18.26 .047 .24 .71 9.61 1. Insofar as the transfer mode relates to shielding gas turbulence.039/.55 .029/.23 12.81 1.035 .34/.31 .81 .70 9.60/13.049 6 . % .60/10.064 . avoiding drafts in the welding area.80/24. and maintaining equipment.25 9.18 12.15 10.48 23.10 12.80 24.40/10.93 1.77 .04/.057 .025/.011 .47 . it can influence nitrogen pickup. clean to minimize turbulence in the gas shield.02/.031 .056 1. ER316L 6 Range Avg.030/.68 1.80 1.019/.40 18.042 .91 Ni 9.05 .040% nitrogen was added for GMAW pads.064 .0 respectively.14/.46 .28/19.3 0.62 .94 1.10/21. These are equivalent to approximate Ferrite Number losses of 2.069 .57 ( a ) .06 .54 .48/.033/.17 — 12.40/13. 347 316 308L.50 19.68 1.22 9.86 9.90/13.85 — — 82(b) — — — — — (a) Excluding one at OS (b) One heat only Table 7 -.054 .54/1. ER308L 13 Range Avg.26 .94 1.15/19.73 9.24 2.39A63 .39/.16 .18 .94 12.020/.52A55 .61 .43 9.12/2.50/9.061 .61/2.75 24. Transfer Mode.020 Mn 1.8 1.26 .056 .040 . of heats 15 29 8 19 7 12 1 8 No. of heats Type C .040 1.52/.040/.44 20.08 . except that no deduction was made for 308L or 316L either GTAW or GMAW.23 .86 11.042 . GTAW.50 19.0 and 4.08 .04 . 316L — 0.06/.002 .80/10.018 .041/. In addition.019 7 .Table 6 .57 . ER347 2 Range Avg.31/.065 .67 . 347 316 308L.S technique which emphasizes maximum gas shielding of the arc and molten weld metal.2 GMAW process — (a) These figures were deducted from the filler metal carbon when calculating predicted ferrite content.60 13.076 . when calculating predicted ferrite using the DeLong Diagram .49 — 18.42/1.046 .047 .47 .39 9.63 1.44/19. 8 ER316 Range Avg.31 .37A54 .020 Avg.58 19.064 .003 .78 .14/.048 .75 1.19 .78 .

6 12. any assumptions reached must be accepted as being only approximations of the final results.8 -1. and (b) the data shown for Gun A represent a larger number and variety of test conditions than the data shown for the other guns. Sch.6 -1. M-Gl" FN 10. All the tests were run by the experienced Welder 1 of Table 3 and under c o m f o r t a b l e and c o n trolled laboratory conditions.g. .2 -1.020% N and a GMAW pickup of 0.0 + 2.1 + 0. possibly for the reasons that (a) it was in poorer overall condition than the others.7 -1. it is necessary to assume some average nitrogen pickup from filler metal to deposit in order to supply a filler metal to a customer which will give him a reasonable ferrite level in the weld deposit — reasonable in the sense of providing enough ferrite to prevent cracking or to meet some deposit ferrite requirements or both.5 .5 -0.3 l 9 ) + 1.2 -0.2(9) + 1.2 .040% N.1 % 0 2 and 90% He7.1 5 20.4 .3 +0. The GTAW figure of 0. Gas protection could be better or poorer in the vertical or overhead positions than in the flat position. The G M A W tests showed very little difference between Guns B. having been in use in our laboratory c o n siderably longer than they.20 11.5 (9> + 2. deposits made with 288-s I J U L Y 1 9 7 3 Table 9 — Ferrite Data from 53 Type 308 GTAW Pads Rod diam.6 -1. nitrogen pickup can be reduced by use of a torch which includes a gas lens.6 + 1.3 -1.1 9.67 11..21 13. From a practical viewpoint.9 11. Also s u m marized are the results of GTAW tests with two c o m m e r c i a l l y available torches.9 + 1.3 + 0. use of a large.9 + 0 7 -1.0 10.4 -0.8 13. except that the size and overall geometry of the gun may affect nitrogen p i c k u p to the extent that it prevents the welder from holding a short gas cup-to-work distance — e.7 Change.(9) -2.05 13. the tests covered both spray and short-circuiting transfer. Both fillet welds and deep groove welds are obviously physically better shielded than welds on a flat plate. which minimizes exposure of the metal.8 -0.9 + 0 2 3 21.4 .7' 9 > -0.9 -0.1 <9) -1.7 _0.6 .5 -0.9 When the variations in nitrogen pickup shown in the data are considered.3 11.0 + . and both 0. the nitrogen increases in these tests were all relatively low.1 + 0.7 9.22 11.42 11.2 -1.29 13.4 10. 1 '9I + 0.9 + 2.7 + 0.80 11.4 9.67 .52 8. one with a gas lens and the other without.1 9.1 + 0..51 21.35 DeL.1 11.045 and 1/16 in.7 12.5 _21(g> + 1.2 8.0 .5 9.3 + 0.9 10.0 (9» -1. our data are inconclusive on this point.0 8. electrode diameters.9 + 2. in.7 7.74 13.1 -1. A l t h o u g h it would be expected that GMAW with short circuiting transfer might show somewhat greater gas turbulence than spray transfer GMAW.7 12. Table 4 summarizes the results o b t a i n e d in G M A W tests w i t h f o u r different gun designs f r o m three manufacturers. Gun A performed somewhat less well than the other three.9 -2.13 11.0 . using 99% A r .1.6 <gl + 2.2 11.0 .66 12.4 <9) 11.3 0. 2 (9) + 0.4'9) + 0.70 9.3 -2.7 . With this caution in mind.6 + 1.9 + 0. heavy gun to deposit a small fillet weld in tight quarters may result in lower deposit ferrite than use of a smaller lightweight g u n for the s a m e j o b . + 1.045 .1 11.46 13. 10. FN (d) 7.4 . As a general rule. 3 (9) 0 -0.0 + 2. Although no tests were run in these areas it seems logical that nitrogen pickup would depend upon these variables also.4 + 2.4 9. 9 ) 10.05 11.1 + 1.7 21. consequently. the pickup of nitrogen and the loss of ferrite can be quite high.92 11. Heat DeL. Eq (a) Ni Eq ( b l Ni Eq |c| 21.1 (9' 12.9 11.1 + 1.2 -1. Joint Design and Position of Welding. The GMAW figure of 0.6 + 2.5 8. F N t o Sch.57 3/32 3/32 10 3/32 1/8 11 1/16 3/32 the former contained lower nitrogen in all cases. it is also true that short circuiting arc transfer does not involve the fine particles of molten metal which cross the arc gap in spray transfer. F N t o M-GFN M-G FN + 2.4 + 0. we assume a GTAW pickup of 0.4 + 1.0 8.1 9.045 3/32 3/32 1/8 — 1/16 3/32 1/8 1/16 1/8 1/8 — 1/16 3/32 1/8 1/16 3/32 1/8 — 1/16 1/16 1/16 1/16 21.„i + 0.6 13.2 -0.6 9.ferred across the arc. 9 ) 7.9.030 .2 + 0. .1 8. In GTAW.96 14.0 11. so the overall nitrogen pickup could be either less or greater than with spray transfer. FN (e) 8.3.57 11.6 13.0 ( s ) + 2.30 11. In the set of eight pairs of weld deposits prepared to compare the gas lens torch with the ordinary torch.3 + 0. Recommendations On Average Nitrogen Pickup.020% is roughly equal to the average data presented and represents what we estimate would result from good practice in joints more protected than our test pads.2 21.2 12.8 11.2<9) + 1. Cr DeL.37 11.7 -0.4 ( 9 ) + 1.76 7.01a' 13..0 11.5 -0.6 10.9 12.040% is above the average of the data in Table 4 but provides a factor of safety for welders less trained in and less conscious of the nitrogen problem than the welder who ran most of our later tests.9 l 9 ) 11. Gun or Torch Design.8(9) -1.0 .6 + 1.4(9» -1. as well as the added variations which could come from variations in production welding situations due to the influence of the joint on gas shielding.82 7.5% C 0 2 shielding gases respectively. 21.6 -1.6 12.0 7.44 14. C and D.2(9) Change.1 + 3.3 21.8 10.1(9) 9. generally provides the least nitrogen pickup of the gas-shielded processes and hence the least variations in weld metal ferrite content.14 11.4 + 4.6 (9 > 12.045 1/16 3/32 3/32 1/8 5/32 21.18 14.4 10.2 12.0 (g> 7 21.01 13.0 + 1.0(9> 9.9 -1. all three guns providing reasonably low weld metal nitrogen pickup.1 + 1.43 14.3 -0.5% Ar-2. Here again the effect is related to gas turbulence.2 10. Protection against drafts would be a variable.60 11.2'9> -0. As our earlier tests show.1 + 2.5 Sch.7 13.5 -0.3 + 2.4 12. it appears that when all are in equally good (or bad) condition no significant differences will be seen between most commercially available semiautomatic GMAW guns.5 10. 2 (3) -1.0 7.92 13.4 9.4 (9) + 2.4*9) 10.

2. In addition.045 1/16 3/32 1/16 — — — — 1/8 1/18 .88 21. the m a t h e m a t i c a l l y c o n verted lines were shifted somewhat toward the 0 FN line so that the new diagram better reflects the ferrite levels found in GTAW and GMAW deposits.98 11.59 21.1 11.0 13.2 +0.3 -1.3 7. the 308.97 11.13 11. and the many 316.3 -0. 1 and 2 shows that the calculated Chromium Equivalent (Cr Eq) for a given specimen will be the same for both the DeLong and Schaeffler Diagrams.60 11. Inherent Differences Between the DeLong and Schaeffler Diagrams A comparison of Figs.3 -2. Change.7<9> -4.1 +0.2 8.44 13.2 0 + 2. DeL.2 -1.68 DeL.7 14.46 21.1 <a) + 1.52 11. This is a direct mathematical conversion.2 11.63 7.8 Change.3 13 — — — 3/32 1/8 .8 10. The extent of the revisions can be s u m m a r i z e d as follows: (1) no change was made in the 0% (i. FN 8.6 5.2(9) -3. F N t o Sch.8 8.0 10. The major revision has been to convert the original magnetically-determined percent ferrite values to the new WRC Ferrite Number scale for magnetic instruments.5 X % Cb).79 14.3 -0.2 -3.0 10.4 7.5 x % Mn) (d) DeL.1 12.7 16.18 21.6(9) -2.9 + 2.0 + 0. The individual effects of changes of ± 0 . Table 10 — Ferrite Data from 3 Type 347 GTAW Pads (For Explanation of Column Headings See Footnotes Table 9) Rod diam. This data substantially outnumbered the prior data from covered electrodes in the higher ferrite area.90 Sch.035 — 3/32 (a) Cr Eq: Chromium equivalent calculated from filler metal chemistry (= % Cr + % Mo + 1.7 12. 316L.43 13.2 + 0.67 14.9 -0. Also. where the original covered weld metal data were sparse.23 DeL.6 +0. Of these.7 10. However.93 13.77 21. FN 12. Same for both DeLong and Schaeffler Diagrams (b) DeL.3 14.060% N for 308. which on the DeLong Diagram represents 1.73 13.6 14.9 9. (2) slight changes were made in the 4 to 6 FN area to make a smooth transition to the reduced spacing between lines above the old 6% level and (3) at Ferrite Numbers above 8.25 11.2(9) 12.3 -0.4 12.0 13.e.98 12.7 12.2 + 1. our measured ferrite did correlate reasonably well with the limited data which we had available for higher ferrite levels..2 8.4 -1.1 10.34 21.0 13.2 9. in.6 -1.84 13.7 9. Sch.88 22.91 13.2 -2.9 11. the original ferrite lines at 8% and higher were primarily extensions of the pattern shown by the data in the 0 to 8% range. it seemed desirable to utilize the substantial body of quality assurance data which we had collected on GTAW and GMAW deposits (presented in the next portion of this paper) to further improve the diagram in the high ferrite areas. As base points the points where the 2.6 10.7 -4. F N t o M-GFN M-G FN + 2. 6 and 11 FN (DeLong) or percent ferrite (Schaeffler) lines intersect the vertical line at 21.08 21. a slight adjustment was made in the line locations for the higher ferrite areas of the diagram.9 (a) 20.31 11.36 14.8 + 0.17 13.3 0 -3.6 _2.84 DeL.4 +0.3 11.0 7.9 + 1.2 13. Schaeffler assumes 0.67 21.7 DeLong Constitution Revision Diagram The C o n s t i t u t i o n Diagram presented in 1956 3 is presented in a revised form as Fig.0 Sch.4 0 -2. Ni Eq 13.5 14.1 +0.3 -0.91 11.12 12.1 8. In spite of this.85 13.64 11.53 11. Since little data were available at ferrite levels higher than 8%.3<9) +0. Ni Eq: DeLong nickel equivalent calculated from filler metal chemistry corrected per Table 8 ( = % Ni + 30 X % C + 0.1 M-G FN 12.90 11.61 13. NiEq 11.045 1/16 1/16 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 — — 1/16 prepared with covered electrodes 1/16 to V* in.8 Change.3 Sch. 2 in Cr Eq and Ni Eq 289-s 3/32 — — — — — 3/32 1/16 .1 -2. 1/16 3/32 28 045 (a) Average for heat when more than one test per heat Heat 28 Cr Eq 20.12 Sch.7 11.2 -4.69 11. The original diagram was based on data f r o m over 600 weld metal pads WELDING RESEARCH SUPPLEMENT! . in diam and of three different coverings. 0 FN) line. FN: Ferrite Number calculated using DeLong constitution diagram (e) Sch.11 12.1 -2.8 Change.3 12.9 7. NiEq 14.1 9.0 Cr Eq will be used.84 13. Ni Eq: Schaeffler nickel equivalent calculated from filler metal chemistry corrected per Table 8 (+ % Ni + 30 X % C + 0.4 13. FN: % ferrite calculated using Schaeffler constitution diagram (taken as equal to FN) (f) M-G FN: Ferrite Number measured on pad using Magne-Gage calibrated per WRC procedure (g) Average for heat when more than one test per heat.8 Ni Eq. DeL.78 DeL. 309 and 347 pads averaged about 6% ferrite on the old scale.77 22. Ni Eq 11. but the calculated Nickel Equivalent (Ni Eq) will obviously be higher for the D e L o n g D i a g r a m b e c a u s e of DeLong's added factor for nitrogen.3 10. FN 6. the recent WRC calibration has increased the assigned values for ferrite content as previously described.74 12.0 (8) 7.8 11.0 -1.0*9) 11. 3/32 3/32 Cr Eq 22.77 21.5 X % Mn•+ 30 X % N) (c) Sch.2 9.5 9. FN to M-GFN -0. and did support the diagram lines from 8% through 14% ferrite. FN 12.3 13.6 11.75 21.3 -2.9 + 1.Heat 12 diam.5 -0. F N t o M-GFN _0.9<9> -1.6 -0.61 11.2 -0.6 M-G FN 8. as illustrated in Table 1.1 9.1 10.3 13. The objective of this section is to clarify and compare the effects of rather small changes in Chromium and Nickel Equivalents on the predicted ferrite levels as calculated with the DeLong and Schaeffler Diagrams.62 21.4 9.1 +0.32 21.6<9) -1.4 | a ) 8.60 13. 308L.9 + 3. 317 and 317L pads ranged from 0% up to 6%. in. specifically for our MagneGages.5 11.87 12.5 X % Si + 0.6 14.30 21.

0 21. m o l y b d e n u m and c o l u m b i u m and the supplying mill a n a l y s i s f o r n i t r o g e n .3 11. A c o m p a r i s o n of t h e a c t u a l w e l d metal analyses with t h e filler metal c h e m i s tries indicated the following: 1. 0 .40 11. silicon.1 W 11.1 < +0. 0 .035 1/16 20.1 11.48 13. FN 21.4<a» 10.0 a n d t h e c u m u l a t i v e e f f e c t s of a c h a n g e of + 0 . 2 % in M o o r 0 .99 11. A t a level of 2 F N .0 •>(a) 9. A p p r o a c h (c) w a s f i n a l l y d e c i d e d u p o n .2 c h a n g e in C r E q c o u l d b e p r o d u c e d b y a c h a n g e of 0 .5 13.8 10. w e i g n o r e d t h e m b e c a u s e (a) t h e e f f e c t s w e r e l a r g e l y s e l f .5 <a) 12.a» + 1. DeL.1 10. FN See Footnotes Table 9) M-G FN 10.49 11.8 -2.0 10.49 13.8 -4.96 12. Table 8 lists t h e s e f i n d i n g s . 2. S u m m a r i e s of the filler m e t a l a n a l y s e s by t y p e a r e p r e s e n t e d in T a b l e 6 f o r t h e r o d s u s e d in G T A W a n d T a b l e 7 f o r t h e e l e c t r o d e s u s e d in G M A W . Cr Eq DeL. F N t o Sch.0 8.1 9.8 0.53 11.0 -1. T h e v a l u e s w e r e o b t a i n e d by r e a d i n g t h e d i a g r a m s of F i g u r e s 1 a n d 2 as c l o s e l y a s p o s s i b l e .8 11.10 11.57 20.30 11.89 11. 2 Ni Eq) a r e s h o w n in T a b l e 5. 1 4 % in S i .9 -1. a 0.63 1/16 3/32 5/32 .6 + 1. A 0. T a b l e 5 s h o w s t h a t a c h a n g e of 0.£ 14. 0 . U s e d as t h e base w a s t h e filler metal chemistry d e t e r m i n e d f r o m the a v e r a g e of s e v e r a l t e s t s o n t h e h o t rolled rod a n d / o r d r a w n wire for the elements carbon.92 3/32 I/8 12.8 ( a ) Change.3 -0. 2 % in N i .3 11. (b) t h e y w o u l d influence calculated Ferrite N u m b e r b y n o m o r e t h a n a b o u t 0. 2 Ni E q (or .85 21.5 + 1.5 F N if a t all a n d (c) t h e r e w a s a q u e s t i o n a s t o whether the changes might have been d u e t o n o r m a l a n a l y t i c a l e r r o r in t h e X-ray spectrographic techniques u s e d to d e t e r m i n e t h e a n a l y s i s ( r e checks using wet chemistry techniques are being m a d e to c h e c k this out).4 .3 -1. a > -3.2 + 0. a n d o n m o s t of t h e d e posits chemical analyses were run.59 11. T o d e v e l o p a p r a c t i c a l m e t h o d for p r e d i c t i n g G T A W a n d G M A W deposit ferrite using chemical a n a l y s i s of t h e f i l l e r m e t a l a n d t h e DeLong Diagram.8 14.3 (a) + 1. A l t h o u g h s o m e t r e n d s were seen indicating slight average losses in M n .14 11.26 13.5 -0.47 21.8 + 0.3 + 1.97 11.28 21.0 11.2 in t h e C r E q a n d Ni E q .87 11.4 + 1.2 34 .44 11.0 10.3 12. U s i n g t h e m e t h o d d e v e l o p e d in 1.8 11. a n d (c) t o m o d i f y t h e filler m e t a l heat a n a l y s e s s o a s t o r e f l e c t a n t i c i p a t e d c h a n g e s in the critical elements c a r b o n and nitrog e n .7 14.3 -0.0 13.9 + 0.7 11.1 t o 1. 0 0 7 % in N (if t h e D e L o n g D i a g r a m is u s e d ) .8 11.0 .1<»> + 0.8 ( a ) + 3.5 + 1.34 .9 ( a ) + 2.71 13.5 + 0. 2 % in C r .0 -2. nickel.2 + 0.9" 9. Change.7 11. C r a n d M o (in t h e M o bearing grades).035 3/32 3/32 — 1/16 14. howe v e r .70 11.0 12. Ni Eq Sch.3.045 1/16 35 36 37 1/16 38 3/32 39 3/32 40 1/8 41 3/32 42 .0 11.c a n c e l l i n g .2 e a c h in C r E q a n d Ni E q w i l l . 4 % in C b . c h r o m i u m .3 + 0.0' a ) -0.03 12.8 +0.6 -1. to c o m p a r e t h e D e L o n g and S c h a e f f l e r D i a g r a m s in r e s p e c t of h o w closely each predicts the G T A W and G M A W deposit ferrite for the m o r e c o m m o n f e r r i t e . A m o n g t h e s e w e r e (a) t o c a l c u late f e r r i t e u s i n g o n l y t h e f i l l e r m e t a l heat analysis a n d c o m p a r e the results with the m e a s u r e d (Magne-Gage) f e r r i t e o b t a i n e d in e a c h p a d .0 10.0 14.4 13.2|a) a) -3. p r o d u c e an o v e r a l l c h a n g e of a b o u t 1. Ni Eq Headings DeL. 0 0 7 % in C.5 11.0 14. a g i v e n c h a n g e in Cr E q a n d / o r Ni Eq w i l l p r o d u c e l e s s c h a n g e in c a l c u lated ferrite on the D e L o n g D i a g r a m than on the Schaeffler Diagram. ( b ) s a m e as (a) b u t u s i n g a c t u a l w e l d m e t a l analysis including an estimate for n i t r o g e n c o n t e n t of t h e w e l d m e t a l (since the QA weld metal analyses did n o t i n c l u d e n i t r o g e n ) .6 + 0. t h e p a t t e r n is not a c o n s t a n t one b e c a u s e both the s p a c i n g s a n d t h e s l o p e s of t h e c o n stant ferrite lines c h a n g e f r o m o n e d i a g r a m t o t h e o t h e r .43 11.4 1/16 33 3/32 1/8 — 21. w h i c h would apply to calculations using both the D e L o n g and the Schaeffler diam.0 (a) -1. 4 % in M n .035 (a) Average for heat when more than one test per heat 9.8 + 0.3 -2.7 9.0 (a) 7.3(a) -4.2 c h a n g e in Ni E q c o u l d b e p r o d u c e d by a c h a n g e of a b o u t 0 .1 -1. 2 Cr E q a n d .6 -1. 0 . a n d to c o m p a r e ferrite c a l c u lated f r o m the resulting analyses with M a g n e . t h e a m o u n t of c a r b o n lost d e p e n d i n g o n w i r e c a r b o n content and welding process.8 -2.10 13.b e a r i n g g r a d e s of austenitic stainless steels.5 -3.31 10. F N t o M-GFN M-GFN c o u n t e r e d in a g r o u p of weJd d e posits p r e p a r e d with filler m e t a l f r o m a given heat and type.7 -0. In a d d i t i o n t o m o d i f y i n g t h e f i l l e r metal c a r b o n c o n t e n t for calculation of p r e d i c t e d w e l d m e t a l f e r r i t e .17 13.4 + 2.8 -0. As w o u l d be expected f r o m exa m i n i n g t h e d i a g r a m s .96 22. which we assumed to be primarily d u e to vaporization rather than to o x i d a t i o n .0 32 21.8 13.3 -0.7 + 0.2 11.8 12.9 -2.8 8.3 10.G a g e ferrite m e a s u r e d on the pads.1 + 1.5 + 0.48 12. or 0 . Procedure Several approaches were cons i d e r e d in a n a l y z i n g t h e w e l d p a d s . T h e r e w a s a d i s t i n c t p a t t e r n of l o s s e s in c a r b o n c o n t e n t between f i l l e r m e t a l a n d p a d .0(a) -1. Heat 30 in.1 10.4 ( a > -2.3 8.0 11.3 11. at l e v e l s of 6 FN a n d 11 F N t h e r e v e r s e is t r u e .0 . Study of GTAW and GMAW Deposits The following discussion covers a s t u d y of 129 G T A W a n d 3 2 G M A W d e p o s i t s p r e p a r e d by our Quality A s surance (QA) Department.7 + 1. M a g n e G a g e f e r r i t e w a s c h e c k e d o n all t h e d e p o s i t s .8 12. 3. A l s o n o t e t h a t t h e c h a n g e s in c a l c u l a t e d f e r r i t e a r e r a t h e r s u b s t a n t i a l in v i e w of t h e r e l a t i v e l y s m a l l c h a n g e of 0.3 10. The study was undertaken for the following listed p u r p o s e s : 1.36 17.59 12. N i .0 10.G a g e readings typically e n - . if t h e y r e 290-s I J U L Y 1973 i n f o r c e e a c h o t h e r .6 31 20.8 -4.6 + 0.6 10.22 10.2 — 2.1 + 1. 2. T o s t u d y t h e v a r i a t i o n s in M a g n e .11 21. manganese.16 13. In c a l c u l a t i n g " p r e d i c t e d " ferrite w e modified the filler m e t a l c a r b o n c o n t e n t in a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e a v e r a g e l o s s e s s h o w n in T a b l e 8.40 21. 2 C r E q a n d + 0 .2 + 3.Table 11 — Ferrite Data f r o m 22 Type 308L GTAW Pads (For Explanation Rod ot Column Sch.9 (a) 12.6 F N d e p e n d i n g o n the ferrite level a n d t h e diagram used.3 +0.

0 +4.6 +3.70 16.7 4.2 FN.1 -0.8 12.2 + 2.70 18.2 +0.9 + 3.7 8. 1/16 3/32 3/32 1/8 44 .6 13.34 14.6 + 1.96 14.8 9.8 -2.5 -0.08 24.58 16.9 9.045 3/32 46 .5 9. The overall GTAW g r o u p of 94 tests on 36 heats shows an average standard 25. Each test variance shown was calculated by summing the squares of the differences between individual test values and the average test value for the heat used in each test and dividing the sum so obtained by the figure (number of tests minus number of heats involved).7 18.6 + 1.8 6.0 4.3 +0.3 3.7 10.6 + 1.e.01 17.045 64 1/16 65 3/32 (a) Average for heat when more than one test per heat o)' Column Headings Sch.2 8.5 + 1.2 9.2 +2. Change.5 +2.6 FN and show an average standard deviation of about 1.2(a> 2.45 Sch.4 1. being based on Magne-Gage measurements.2 (a) 5.5 (a) +4.5 -3. i. the FN can be r e g a r d e d as e q u i v a l e n t t o t h e Schaeffler percent ferrite.8 6.65 15. The table shows what appears to be a significant trend.61 24. A n Overall Review GTAW and GMAW Table 12 — Ferrite Data from 23 Type 309 GTAW Pads (For Explanation of Column Headings See Footnotes Table 9) Rod diam.6 -2.51 15. are presented in terms of Ferrite Number.8 ( a ) 8. Tables 9 through 19 list data on the 129 GTAW and 32 GMAW pads included in the study.2 13.040% for GMAW calculations (also listed in Table 8 for reference).83 16.3 Footnotes Table 9) M-G FN 5. The combined 316 and 316L tests show an average ferrite content 5.8 ( a ) 7.59 21.11 14.3 5. in.1(a) -3.8 9.80 16.42 15.3 9.1(a) + 1.7 24.020% for GTAW calculations and 0.4 -0.2 + 2.6 -1.4 + 1.1 0 +5.2 -0.0 25.8 + 2.4 +0.4 13.0 15. FN to Sch.64 DeL.7 -0.5 + 0. FN 5.60 2.0 24.6 9.37 13.4 -0.2 -0.1 +0.55 17.1 + 1.78 21.41 16.19 16.1 7.09 24.6 FN and an average standard deviation of about 0.3(a» -2.43 6.91 3.7 9. a > -1.9 +0.2 7.1 +3.0 + 2.3(a) +2.3 (a) + 1.2 + 2.6 +4.18 14.5 8. Change.045 1/8 45 .5 11. these data are summarized by type and process in Tables 20 (GTAW) and 21 (GMAW).15 15.4 -2.0<a) 10.23 15.9 21..1 6 7 Heat 58 DeL.32 14.8 WELDING RESEARCH SUPPLEMENT! 291-s . we assumed a constant nitrogen pickup from the filler metal nitrogen of 0.9 15.8 14.6 9.4 13. F N t o Sch.0 ( a ) -1.57 15.3 + 2. Cr Eq 22.8 -1.2 11.0 11.2 -0.18 14.0 12.3 22.2 ( a > -0.4 21.4<a> -0.96 15.4'a» 4.14 15.0 -5.8 + 1.4 4.5 (a) 21.6<a> 4.8 -0.12 25. it is based on only 14 tests and with more tests the standard deviation for 309 might come down toward that of the 308 family. FN 6.38 14.1 +2.1 6.4(al +0. NiEq 14.3 + 0.2 +0.7 -3.045 63 .8 8.5 +2.9 +0.035 1/8 47 1/16 1/16 48 1/16 3/32 49 1/8 50 3/32 51 1/8 52 1/16 53 1/8 54 1/8 55 3/32 56 3/32 57 1/16 (a) Average for heat when more than one test per heat Heat 43 Cr Eq 24.4 + 2.8 0.84 15.1 5.50 16.3 See Sch.8 4.38 11.2 ( a ) +2.9(a) + 1.29 1/8 1/8 1/8 59 3/32 3/32 60 3/32 1/8 61 1/16 3/32 62 . Tests of the more highly alloyed 309 weld metal with about the same ferrite content as the 308 show a standard deviation of about 1.71 14.3<a) 13.81 16.6 + 2.10 18.3 -0.6 (a) + 1. of t h e test variance furnished the standard deviation in each case.94 17.5 12.5 15.3 24.65 5.63 DeL.94 17.8 FN.2 Variations From Test To Test On A Single Heat The Magne-Gage data from Tables 9 through 19 have been summarized and analyzed in Table 22 to show statistical data by types and in total for all heats on which multiple tests were run.59 25.1(a) +0.5 +0.8 (a) 13.4 11.2 -2.1(a) -0. FN to M-GFN M-GFN -1.4 24.7 6.1 .8 -1.1 4.3 Table 13 — Ferrite Data from 14 Type 316 GTAW Pads (For Explanation Rod diam.6 ( a ) + 1. this divisor c o m bines the usual (n-1) small sample divisors for the data from individual heats and is the commonly accepted method of giving an overall variance for several small groups of data. in. Ni Eq 16.4 -0. that the standard deviation increases appreciably as the average ferrite content increases.7(a) -1.9 12.Diagrams. NiEq 18.7 <a) 8.67 25.0 M-G FN 6. These assumptions were based on the data discussed earlier in this paper.86 11.02 16.035 .16 17.1(a) -4.19 14.6 6.9 Sch. As discussed earlier.1<a> + 1.3 16.9 22.62 14.2 + 1.3 -1.79 3.13 9.2(a) +0.7 -1. NiEq 16.0 12.2(a) -0. The combined 308 and 308L tests average about 10.1 -0.47 15.4 -0.8 Change.5 10. F N t o M-GFN M-GFN -2.2 5.4 + 1.5 19.95 25.28 12.2 +0.7 4.4 1.4 -1. GTAW data from the several types are arranged in order from the type showing the lowest standard deviation to that showing the highest.3 + 1.1 +2.3 8. DeL.8 5.58 16.5 -0.96 17.83 18.86 25.43 15.8 6.61 17.2 2.6 2.13 Change.13 16. FN 7.78 16. The data in Table 22.17 DeL.4 +5. Although the figure for 309 may be correct and due to that type's higher alloy content.7 14. DeL.9 4. FN 8.8 2.8 FN.2 11.6 12.5 5.3 +4.6 13. Taking t h e s q u a r e root.0 +4.

87 14.67 21.8 6. Considering that in the DeLong Diagram a given change in chemistry causes a greater change in calcu292-s I J U L Y 19 73 lated FN at high FN levels than at low FN levels (as shown in Table 5 at levels of 2.2 21. DeL.2 + 3.5 (a » + 2. it can be seen that roughly 87% of the values were within ± 2.4 + 2.5 +0.53 2. Thus.0 + 3.5 8.9 + 1.8 + 3 .045 74 .46 11.9 7.9 2.73 11.0 9.3 -1.0 FN on the low side or 12.5 -0.9 fits in well with the trend indicated by the GTAW data.8 S.8 8. The DeLong Diagram data were significantly better than the Schaeffler.81 4. NiEq 11.3 -0. in.Table 14 — Ferrite Data from 14 Type 316L GTAW Pads (For Explanation of Column Headings See Footnotes Table 9) Rod diam.21 . As stated in the note on Fig. Change.0 10.9 Sch.035 1/16 1 .1 10.035 .a) -0. F N t o Sch.e.030 73 .045 .6 5. Ni Eq 14. FN 10.0 5.9 9.4 -1.4 +2.5 -2.7 -3.0 7. testing procedure.1 -3. This thesis is borne out by the strong in- . 4.1 5. NiEq 14.43 21.8 + 2.030 .92 15.68 11. Turning first to the covered electrode summary bar graph data.0 9.6 10. and the inherent ferrite variations to be expected from pad to pad in the weld metal itself. 5 >a» -0.4 FN.3 22.3 6.5(a) + 1.8 8.6 -2. 4.8 -1.8 +0.0 FN on the high side would be acceptable.6 M-G FN 6.0 6.0 0 + 1.3 7.44 21.2 7.4 deviation of about 1. at ± 3 FN the figures were about 92% and 78%. Variations From Predicted FN To Measured FN The data from Tables 9 through 19 are presented graphically in the bar graphs of Fig. FN 4. the width of each bar representing covered electrode data based on the DeLong Diagram has been expanded 15% to compensate for the increase in numerical value in going from our old percent ferrite to the new Ferrite Number system.045 2 .6 4. If the experimental results are assumed to produce a normal distribution curve.29 14.5 8.22 6. Cr Eq 21.20 11.5 6. the receiving acceptance test limits would require a test tolerance of not less than about 1.8 -0.9 10. 6 and 11 FN).59 14.2 +0. Cr Eq 21.67 .0 Change.5 +3.88 21.8(a) 3.5 FN based on the DeLong Diagram versus about 68% within the same range based on the Schaeffler Diagram.0 7.5 0 +0.6 8.2 -0.5 FN on the low side and about 2.48 DeL. respectively.7 7.5 10.00 14.9 +0.0 9. it could logically be expected that a similar trend would be present in ferrite measured with a Magne-Gage — i.9 M-G FN 7.91 11. a given change in the factors influencing measured FN would cause a greater change in measured FN at high FN levels than at low FN levels.65 15.7 8. The covered electrode graph has been condensed to a scale similar to that of the other bar graphs for easier comparison.47 DeL.85 21.93 12. F N t o Sch.8 +3.32 21. which also presents for comparison a summary bar graph of similar data on covered electrode weld pads of the same types drawn from the work described in Ref.0 (a) + 1. F N t o M-G FN M-GFN + 2.48 14. and one of plus or minus two sigma should encompass about 95% of the tests.8 6.29 13.69 14.5 -0.2 FN.77 21.7( a > -3.6 -4. NiEq 15.045 72 .0 +2. It is obviously desirable that acceptance tests for material be set so that there is substantially less than a 10% chance of rejection due to testing error or variation.7 11.5 ( a | + 2. and an average weld deposit ferrite content of 9.02 16.3 + 1.1 4.60 14. This was logical because the De- 21.1 + 1. Diam.76 9.0 + 1.1 10.85 14.5 +4.8 -0.97 15.34 21.2 11.2 Table 15 — Ferrite Data from 12 Type 308 GMAW Pads (For Explanation of Column Headings See Footnotes Table 9) Electr.1 10.83 Sch.0.01 22.72 15.1 -6.3 1.4 8 . F N t o M-G FN M-GFN -1.045 6 3/32 15 1/16 18 3/32 20 .5 ( a ) + 1.13 14.8 +2.77 14.3 -4.0 Change. FN 3.0 10. Change.3 dication that the standard deviations for measured ferrite at high FN levels are greater than they are at low FN levels.4 +3.6 + 1. a range of plus or minus one standard deviation (sigma) from the mean should encompass about 68% of the tests.3 22.31 14. 3. if a specification for a GTAW deposit were to be established at 5 to 12 Ferrite Number and the assumption made that mean values of 5.2 8.8 +4.5 6. FN 7.10 13.8 -3.0 -0.4 + 3.90 11.1 -3.4 ( a ' 6.7 4.06 21.045 1/16 1/8 67 .0 -1.2(a) 8.96 12.3 8. Amendments to specifications MILE-0022200/2 and MIL-E-19933D for c o v e r e d and b a r e a u s t e n i t i c chromium nickel stainless steel electrodes have for several years accepted this philosophy of broader receiving test tolerances to provide for variations in pad preparation.. particularly on the low side.1 5.045 1/16 1/8 68 3/32 3/32 1/8 69 3/32 70 3/32 71 3/32 (a) Average for heat when more than one test per heat Heat 66 DeL.9 (a) 7.0 FN on the high side in order to reduce to well under 10% the chances of rejection at the specification limits.7 6.8 -2.85 12. in.23 Sch.035 (a) Average for heat when more than one test per heat Heat 3 DeL.9 Sch.96 FN at an average FN of 7. The GMAW data are not extensive enough to separate by type.9 10.6 -1. DeL. but the overall standard deviation of 0.8 5.5 + 1.26 15.

7 diam.8 11.7 See Footnotes M-G FN 11.i<a> + 1. FN 8.0.03 19.1 -2.40 19.46 10.7 M-G FN Change.08 Sch.7 4.0 -1.6 Heat 46 DeL. where a ± 3 FN range included about 92% of the values. NiEq 11.7 9. the D e L o n g a n d Schaeffler results are essentially equivalent in total.26 17.96 24. F N t o M-GFN M-GFN Table 18 — Ferrite Data from 8 Type 309 GMAW Pads (For Electr. in.045% nitrogen and an 0. These figures are comparable to those cited above for the DeLong covered electrode summary bar graph. NiEq 14.3 -3. On the DeLong Diagram approximately 94% of the calculated values are w i t h i n .0 M-G FN Change.83 19.91 16.49 12.58 11.05% on some sizes of special titania types.05 15.48 10. Change.Long Diagram corrected not only for core wire nitrogen contents.46 15. diam. FN '3.4 10.86' 25.62 11. With 308 and 308L weld metal (probably also 347) the DeLong and Schaeffler Diagrams produce essentially equivalent results.89 Sch. NiEq 17. it is low on both diagrams.045 21.57 Sch.0 + 1. Where the balance is a little low as on the 308L.8 +0. The slope of the ferrite lines is greater on the DeLong Diagram than on the Schaeffler. the Schaeffler Diagram understates the 316.3 + 1. so that the DeLong Diagram predicts higher ferrite values than Schaeffler for types 316 and 316L at normal nitrogen levels.2 and a corresponding change in FN of approximately 4. Change.8 M-G FN Change.7 22.0 9.1 8.6 -0.5 +0.11 13.7 10. 316L and 309 families as it did for covered electrodes 3 .92 14.70 5.5 10.9 6.2 8. Change.15 14.9 21. FN to M-GFN M-G FN .1 + 0.6 8.48 15. r e a s o n a b l y c l o s e to t h e 0 . The ER308 and ER308L rods average about 0.33 13.0 Table 19 — Ferrite Data from 1 Type 316 and 3 Type 316L GMAW Pads (For Explanation of Column Headings See Footnotes Table 9) Electr. FN to Sch.2 + 1.2 7.1 11. This s p r e a d of 0 .7 -0.3 7.8 +0.2 3.7 7.70 15.3 5.4 6. and on the Schaeffler Diagram about 9 1 % are within this range. in.5 + 0.0 9. Thus the Schaeffler Diagram would be expected to give reasonable results for Table 16 — Ferrite Data from 6 Type 308L GMAW Pads (For Explanation of Column Headings See Footnotes Table 9) Electr.2 20. 1 <a) -0. DeL. 0 4 % in t h e t y p i c a l nitrogen pickups in itself represents a change in nickel equivalent of about 1.31 6. FN 10.0 -0.2 10. 0 6 % nitrogen content which we believe was a s s u m e d by S c h a e f f l e r for covered electrode deposits. FN to Sch. T h e r e .4 + 1. DeL. diam. Appropriate corrections for the varying nitrogen p i c k u p d e p e n d i n g on e l e c t r o d e covering and size plus further corrections in the 316. DeL.36 14.71 6.9 22. Explanation ->t Column Cr Eq 25.67 24. Cr Eq 20.045 75 . FN 3.8 -2.0(a> +0.76 3.3<a> 12.1 -0.51 17.4 24.61 DeL. which showed only 78% within ± 3 FN.045 77 1/16 78 .8 4.s .77 16. FN 13.9 Sch.6 Sch. NiEq 18.06 DeL.48 DeL.02 22.7 8. Ni Eq 15. which differed appreciably.6 + 1. DeL.0 -0.6 -5.38 11.1 DeL.34 18.1 -1.61 24. Heat 29 .9 +2. in. FN to M-GFN M-GFN Heat 61 (316) .34 1/16 36 1/8 42 .52 13. ranging from an average 0 .3 8.96 DeL. NiEq 14. but also for the varying nitrogen pickup f r o m differences in electrode size and covering types.9 6. NiEq 14.46 Sch.1 + 1.04 13.8 8.3 -3.1 14.065% nitrogen.9 10. diam. 316L and 309 families as described in reference 3 logically explain the better results o b tained with the DeLong Diagram on covered electrodes.4 8.045 47 1/16 49 1/16 50 1/16 51 1/8 57 1/16 (a) Average for heat when more than one test per heat Headings DeL.045 21. Cr Eq 21.045 76 .8 +0.2 + 1.8 8.2 Sch. in.0 -0.16 Sch.3 -4. FN to M-GFN M-GFN Heat 35 Table 17 — Ferrite Data from 2 Type 347 GMAW Pads (For Explanation of Column Headings See Footnotes Table 9) Electr.70 24.3 + 2 . 0 1 % N pickup on c o m m o n sizes of dc lime type electrodes to 0.2 .8 10.3 -2.035 45 .0 9.5 Table 9) Change. and are appreciably better than the Schaeffler covered electrode summary.1 5.6 21. F N t o Sch.0 +0.1 9. The DeLong Diagram has a better balance on these three more highly alloyed types.2 +2.19 11.5 _ — 0 (a) Average for heat when more than one test per heat W E L D I N G R E S E A R C H S U P P LE M E N T I 2 9 3 . FN to Sch.7 10. However.52 11.1 +0.035 5/64 67 — (316L) 1/16 e.6 8. With regard to individual types welded with the GTAW process.49 11. FN 7. Change.82 11. the significant improvement found for covered electrodes with the DeLong Diagram does not carry over to the GTAW summary bar g r a p h s .6 10.5 +2.48 18.0 6.59 DeL.61 . this difference between the two predictions is even more pronounced for type 309 weld metal.6 -3. Cr Eq 22.5 -1.4 13.0 -2.92 14.51 14.035 69 — (316L) . 4 (a» -1.9(a) + 2. FN 10. NiEq 11.020% pickup will yield a deposit average of 0.i 3 FN of the measured Ferrite Numbers.0 10. FN 4.

6 8.5 to +3.9 + 0.0 to 14.3 10.8 4.040% N will produce a typical 0.10 13. pad t y p e .5 to + 5.2 6. 21.86 ER316L .040% for GMAW would a p p r e c i a b l y reduce the measured values and cause them to fall well below the values calculated from the Schaeffler Diagram.2 7.045%.12 13.4 3.5 FN and all six are negative.5 Ferrite Number.50 8. 53 tests Range 20.70 ER308L . 3 tests 20.4 -1.7 to 10. 1.3 + 1. These results are logical because the average assumed nitrogen pickup of 0.2 to 18.35 17.2 15.5 + 2.53 14.5 FN.0 1. the data show that on the average the measured GMAW results are about 2.6 7. For the 308 and 309 families the average covered electrode deposits will contain about 6 FN as against the 10.06% nitrogen in weld metal of these t y p e s . s u r f a c e preparation. our assumed pickup of 0.6 11.5 FN lower than the figi/res predicted using the Schaeffler Diagram. The GMAW pattern by types is reasonably normal for all types with the D e L o n g D i a g r a m .1 13. Many of these variables are interrelated. as has been done previously in this paper for the variations between individual tests with the same heat of filler metal.9 -0.0 1. six of the thirty two tests run are outside ± 3. The major categories. Using the Schaeffler Diagram.8 to 8.6 -4. 21. 24.4 -0.26 Avg.9 + 2.44 to 14.5 FN.025% over the figure that Schaeffler assumed.99 ER316.6 to 8. 14 tests Range 21.1 12.2 to + 2.38 8.00 15.23 14. Confirming this. as demonstrated by both the c o v e r e d e l e c t r o d e data 3 a n d t h e G T A W d a t a . Earlier in this paper the rather substantial standard deviations found by types and overall in the GTAW and GMAW tests have -been d i s c u s s e d .85 13.81 to 16.61 Avg. FN to M-G FN to M-G FN nitrogen pickup reduces the measured ferrite significantly and brings it down close to the general range predicted by the diagram.3 16.4 to 6.5 10.12 to 12.02 Range to 22.87 to 16.75 nickel or about 2. however.4 to 13. t h e 308. about 0.2 -0. except that a very low current for the electrode size involved can decrease the ferrite level by about 1.8 11.2 -1.8 -1.22 to 14.5 + 1. while only 8 1 % of the Schaeffler values are within that range.9 to 19.64 to 14.8 +0. of course. but within the general ± 3.9 4.3 10.91 14.3 10.5 FN tolerance.61 Range to 20.17 15.5 -1. welding procedure or surface preparation technique could further increase these standard deviations. Some of these can also be treated quantitatively.3 308 and 308L GTAW deposits. i. Sch.3 4.6 FN average in the GTAW deposits.36 Avg. h o w e v e r . Unpublished data submitted to the WRC S u b c o m m i t t e e at their N o v e m b e r 1972 meeting indicated that changes in heat input and welding current over a rather wide range have little influence on measured ferrite content of covered electrode deposits.3 tc 7. Test variations.7 7.69 11.96 to 22.2 to 14.8 3. NiEq DeL.17 2. the standard deviations for covered electrode deposits could be e x p e c t e d to be lower s i m p l y because the average ferrite contents are lower.84 11. The Schaeffler pattern with 309.64 Range to 25.e. c o o l i n g r a t e .9 to 0 -1.5 7.3 -5.3 to + 2.64 13.3 to 7.88 11.0 6.1 6. with some background on e a c h . A word of caution here: The standard deviations presented for GTAW do not necessarily correspond to those which are applicable to covered electrodes..9 12.3 to 14.5 -4.92 to 22.35 ER309. W h i l e the average electrode nitrogen is now below this.2 to + 2. 2.7 11. C h a n g e s in pad t y p e .0 to 16.82 11.1 to + 3. and measurement errors.16 to 14.Table 20 — Summary of GTAW Ferrite Data (For Explanation of Column Headings See Footnotes Table 9) DeL.76 12.9 14. Discussion of V a r i a b l e s in M e a s u r i n g or Predicting Ferrite It is quite feasible to identify a n u m ber of variables or groups of variables involved in the processes of measuring or predicting the ferrite content of austenitic stainless steel weld metals.19 to 22. The summary bar graph shows a much better performance for the DeLong Diagram than for the Schaeffler.0 -4.0 to 12. Change. NiEq Sch.70 11.8 to 5. as expected.73 14. Using the Schaeffler D i a g r a m .6 5.71 16.5 2. FN Sch.63 to 11. 347 a n d 3 0 8 L t y p e s s h o w m e a s u r e d ferrite well below the calculated values. the h i g h . 14 tests 21. the measured values average slightly higher than the calculated.085% nitrogen in the deposit. 22 tests Range 20. as is true with GTAW and G M A W welding. A longer than normal arc length. The Schaeffler Dia294-s I J U L Y 1973 g r a m w a s p r e d i c a t e d u p o n an average 0. 316 and 316L does not follow the pattern of the 308 family. p r o b ably due to somewhat higher nitrogen pickup than normal. FN M-G FN Change.1 -1.33 10.3 to 9.0 to + 1. which does not correct for nitrogen. the m e a s u r e d is well below the c a l culated. 21.16 to 18.34 Avg.38 to 16. Although the number of tests is not large.1 0 to +4. If the variables are similar in magnitude. 0.7 to 17.6 8.50 ER347.60 2.4 -2.32 to 14.3 7.7 8. All of the values given for the DeLong Diagram are within ± 3. this excess nitrogen is equivalent to 0. At a multiplying factor of 30.7 to + 1.75 7. Conclusions on the pertinent standard deviations for covered electrode deposits should await the c o n clusion of the study being conducted by the Advisory Subcommittee of the WRC High Alloys Committee. FN DeL.8 to + 3.7 9.5 0 -3. can decrease the covered electrode f e r r i t e level a p p r e c i a b l y d u e to nitrogen pickup.29 Avg. 20. a r e d i s c u s s e d in i t e m s 1 through 5 below. 23 tests 24.2 to 6. This apparent agreement is due to two opposing influences: The Schaeffler Diagram u n derstates the ferrite content of these types.6 to +4. For the GMAW comparison less data were available to work with.99 to 11.78 Avg. Variations in the chemistry Item CrEq ER308.3 11. which include the variables of welding technique.74 6.0 -2. 21.

Another publication12 which describes a method of determining the ferrite content of stainless steel castings based upon the Schaeffler Diagram shows a scatter band of about ± 1.3 10. Instrument calibration.38 to 14. Change.48 18.1/ 12.l i n e a r behavior).11 ER316. therefore.2 6.61 Avg.7 to 7.0 11.7 -0.8 to + 1.G F N to M-G FN Item CrEq ER308 12 tests Range 21.49 13.1 15.3 9.47 to 12.5/ 13.8 13. This later work did not incorporate variations in nitrogen analysis but probably overstated the variations due to carbon. As disc u s s e d in the i n t r o d u c t i o n .83 4.5 to +2.1 9. this variable has been demonstrated to be 295-s WELDING RESEARCH SUPPLEMENT! .8 to 12.1 2.01 to 22. Si. if the ferrite content were below 6 FN.8 FN.1 All 94 36 58 82. and the mill ladle analysis was usually also the average of multiple tests.36 Avg.91 4. 21.7 5.13 to 15. FN Sch. perhaps around 0.9 17. Variations in diagram construction.1 -5.7 Avg.92 Range to 22. NiEq Sch.8% at an average 5% ferrite content and about ± 2.8 14. As a result.8 to +0.0 -3.88 11. It is assumed that the author intended this to cover a 2 sigma value Table 21 — Summary of GMAW Ferrite Data (For Explanation of Column Headings See Footnotes Table 9) DeL.71 6.0 to + 1.61 to 21. 6 tests 20.2 7.7 to -1. FN M-G FN Change.43 1.43 1.49 •13.77 to 19.1 of heats (a) Includes one heat of 347. or inherent variations in response by one heat versus another.14 Test Variance. 21.4/ 12. FN Sch.3 -2.67 Range to 25.1 to 10. M n .2 5.7 -4.9 to 9.92 14.4 (a) GMAW 308L 16 7 9 11.164 on the C h r o m i u m Equivalent and 0.76 6.8 to 11.6 -0.1 -1.76 to 14.9 10.165 on t h e N i c k e l E q u i v a l e n t .5 -0. 25.2 to 14.0 to 10.3 -3.68 .0 to 6.7 to 6.2 -2. This standard deviation applies to ferrite contents of 10 to 15 FN and could be lower.8 -0. Overall.3 -0.41 3.e.0 10.83 4.20 8.96 5.55 FN based upon high quality chemistry by an experienced laboratory.51 ER347 2 tests Range 20.01 1. Cr.70 11.92 . Mo and N is obviously subject to error which depends upon the skill and experience of the laboratory and the care exercised in analysis.93 3.48 15. FN .4 8. As d i s c u s s e d p r e v i o u s l y w i t h respect to Table 5.15 Avg. Analysis for C.89 to 17.39 1. of heats (B) 5 A minus B 6 Total variance.8 8.2/ 14.0 ^0. n o n . The heats involved averaged around 10.70 to 11. 4. e .96 11.7 5. Statistical analysis of this data 11 showed a standard deviation of 0. due to i n c o r r e c t f a c t o r s for elements.6 or better.57 to 14.0 10.2 4. A previous paper 3 discussed this point and made assumptions which led to a calculated s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n of about 0.83 2.2 7.3 Table 22 — Summary of Variances and Standard Deviations from all Heats on which More Than One Test Was Run Item Type 316 No.5 FN. This figure seems far too low in view of a much more recent study 11 based on comparing steel mill ladle analyses on types 308 and 308L with electrode producers' receiving analyses.61 14.FN to M .8 to 13. the standard deviations in Chromium and Nickel Equivalents reported in the recent study 1 1 result in a s t a n d a r d deviation of only 0. etc.70 .3 3.56 . FN 4.69 Standard deviation FN .6 -1. the approximations in fac- tors for elements where they may have different factors at certain levels t h a n at o t h e r ( i .0 FN for either diagram appears to be a good figure to use for chemical laboratories under good control.8 9.9 7.31 to 11.7 309 14 6 8 24.5 to + 1. In both cases. We are not prepared to estimate the extent of these variations at present.5 -6.90 FN on the revised DeLong Diagram.3 to + 0. FN 5.9 308 40 14 26 36.42 ER309 8 tests 24.4 6.59 14. Also variations due to residuals not taken into account in the calculation.2/ Range of FN on heat 5.0 7.8 -3. 316L 4 tests Range 22.8/ 8.82 14. together these deviations produce a calculated standard deviation of 0.3 -3. The data from the receiving laboratories involved the average of multiple tests on a heat. 20.0 10.8/ 14.1 to 6.2 to +0.9 10. NiEq DeL. errors in line location. the influence of errors in chemical determinations on the calculated ferrite content w o u l d almost always be greater than those estimated here.values used to predict the ferrite from a diagram. the standard deviations cited were lower than those to be expected from chemical analysis drawn from a single determination or from analyses obtained by laboratories less familiar with and less skilled in stainless steel analysis. 22.15 1. DeL.71 to 16..18 7.64% ferrite by the Schaeffler Diagram.41 1.9 4.8 8. a standard deviation of not less than 1.59 11. 2 tests GTAW 316L 11 3 8 5.11 16. Almost all typical chemistry results would have to be considered poorer than the values cited. 3.6 + 1. of tests (A) 11 No. i.02 to 22.10 1. .1 to 11.2% at an average 10% ferrite content "due to uncertainty of c h e m i c a l analysis d e t e r m i n a t i o n s for individual elements".5 to 13.8 3.10 14.6 to 5.49 6.3 +0. since the mill analysis was often a ladle and not a check analysis.66 11.4 7.4 All 7 3 4 3. which tends to be higher than a ladle.1 5.6 to 10. Ni.0 -0.88 ER308L .5 to + 2.6 to + 1. the spacing between ferrite lines at a high level of ferrite (about 11%) is larger on the Schaeffler Diagram than on the DeLong Diagram.34 Avg.19 2.7 10.0 7.68 11.26 Avg.

The variations shown on the bar graphs in Fig. In GTAW a pickup of 0..^ ™LM 0 + 5 5 0 o +5 . Thus it is logical to expect that the overall s t a n d a r d deviation s h o u l d be significantly larger than any of the standard deviations due to Items 1 through 4 individually. Plus sign indicates predicted lower than measured. a. The conclusions reached here are probably not directly applicable to stainless steel castings. The WRC A d visory Subcommittee program discussed under 1 will provide excellent information on this variable.^n •5 0 . This has been discussed previously in this paper. the conclusions cannot be directly applied to wrought stainless steels because such factors as soaking the billets for rolling. direct measurement of FN versus FN calculated using chemical analysis. b. Caution 50 — . a.316 L . JlTTi. On the other hand.e. . 0 — -5 0 tw +5 +5 Fig. if: + 5 In + 5 \wu J * +5 -5 0 Conclusions 1. The differences presented in Tables 9 through 21 are between values determined by entirely different methods.04% N may be assumed. DATA FOR DeLONG DIAGRAM EXPANDED 15 PER-CENT HORIZONTALLY TO ROUGHLY COMPENSATE FOR THE CHANGE TO FERRITE NUMBER.rrfh. solution a n n e a l i n g . 0 ^ . e. Magnetic tests for ferrite c o n tent are the most convenient way to determine if excessive nitrogen pickup has occurred. O v e r a l l variations from predicted FN to measured FN. rri. hot w o r k i n g ..309. The amount of nitrogen picked up can be quite variable in both processes. rrftfTI .02% carbon to about 0. Nitrogen pickup is a significant factor which reduces the ferrite content of austenitic stainless steel weld deposits.. b. etc. Significant carbon losses can o c c u r w h e n w e l d i n g with filler metal having normal carbon contents. SCALED DOWN TO THE SAME HEIGHT AS GTAW SUMMARY BAR GRAPH. . change from predicted ferrite to measured ferrite. Carbon loss in inert gas welding. and may be too severe. have very significant effects on the quantity. with much higher pickup possible if the arc protection is poor. Nitrogen pickup in inert gas welding. 2. which is obviously incorrect and tends to overstate the deviations.rVri -5 0 + -5 316 ji 5 5 L ^ 0 +5 316.5 .3I6L. Vrtjh -5 308L .5 ^fi4 ._. The greatest d i f f e r e n c e between c a l culated and measured ferrite values obviously occurs when the measured value and the calculated value are on opposite sides of the "true" value. but Fig. 5. 308. size and shape of the ferrite and therefore on its relative magnetic response. w» 0 +5 tion. this is equivalent to about 2 FN.06% carbon. a l t h o u g h some of the principles may be. c.n. In GTAW the loss appears to increase linearly as the welding r o d carbon level increases. ".02% N may be assumed. SUMMARY rj "j-. In GMAW a pickup of 0. 4 probably represent the highest possible standard devia- . . from zero loss at about 0. ^cf.02% loss at 0. the difference between calculated and measured must obviously encompass the total v a r i a t i o n resulting f r o m Items 1 through 4 above. minus sign indicates predicted higher than measured a major one in the past8-9 but should be minor after the WRC instrument c a l i b r a t i o n p r o c e d u r e 1 0 is m o r e generally accepted. We are not sure at this time 296-s I J U L Y 1973 how to treat the data to derive a reasonably valid standard deviation. 4 treats the data as though the calculated is the "true" value. d. n +5 0 fn +5 GTAW SUMMARY 20 n GMAW .. $ -5 0 ri + 5 M7 - 5 _n DL 0 + 5 -5 0 +5 -5 0 +5 5 o5 0- -5 riTti. i. 0 40 . c. More importantly.GTAW DELONG 151050- GMAW DELONG SCHAEFFLER SCHAEFFLER 308. DATA FROM WORK REPORTED IN REFERENCE 3. The pattern of carbon loss in GMAW is similar to that in GTAW.5 0 +5 ^T±+ -5 0 + 5 309 5 • . but the amount lost is only about one f o u r t h the a m o u n t lost in +5 3 0- COVERED ELECTRODE SUMMARY 20- 10- BAR GRAPH OF COVERED ELECTRODE DEPOSITS FOR COMPARISON. equivalent to about 4 FN. 0 .5 0 +5 o . . +5 0 + 5 .itfh -5 0 + 5 . 4 — Bar graphs showing frequency vs.

At a measured 6 FN the standard deviation is about 0. G. 9. However.. WELDING Single (avg) measured pad FN compared to: Avg measured FNof5or more pads of the batch Calculated FN from good deposit chemistry and diagram' 3 ' Schaeffler covered bare DeLong covered bare Est." Metal Progress. Steel Founders' Society of American. V. 4. Research Suppl. 170. the differences are slightly lower than those e n countered with covered electrode deposits using the Schaeffler Diagram. Publication 772-5M1. 9. The DeLong Diagram is better for GMAW deposits due to higher nitrogen pickup in those deposits. W. "Welding of High Alloy Castings".5 or 17. 55. 6. Uncertainties in the determination of d e p o s i t c h e m i s t r y are s i g nificant variables in the calculat i o n of f e r r i t e f r o m any c o n stitution diagram. we are estimating the following overall tolerances for m e a s u r e m e n t / c a l c u l a t i o n . L. 33 (9). The base is the average FN as measured on a welded pad of the type defined in this paper. An average standard deviation of 1. Hebble. as is also the case with covered electrode deposits. T. B. Simpkinson. The DeLong Diagram is better on these grades.5 FN or % ferrite can be expected between measured and calculated values.. T. IIW Doc.g..6 FN ±2. The differences to be expected between measured and calculated ferrite contents when using either diagram are greater at the higher ferrite levels found in GTAW and G M A W deposits than when using the DeLong Diagram at the lower ferrite levels of the covered electrode deposits studied in the original work leading to that diagram. II-C-372-71.5 FN m i n i m u m . 5. Gunia.. 11. and would be higher if poorer chemistry values were used. W. 3. "Statistical Treatment of Chemical Analysis Variability". The Schaeffler Diagram understates the ferrite content of the more highly alloyed Type 316. J. 8. L. M. a. The diagrams are essentially e q u i v a l e n t in the d i f f e r e n c e s between predicted and measured ferrite in GTAW deposits of Types 308. 5. e. "Ferrite in Austenitic Steels Estimated Accurately. "Discussion of the International Testing Program for the Determination of Ferrite Content in Austenitic Stainless Weld Metal". DeLong. "Measurement and Calculation of Ferrite in Stainless Steel Weld Metal". 3. and Szumachowski. such as 316 and 316L. C-H. of both systems of rating the ferrite content must be a c c o m m o d a t e d if the r e q u i r e ments are to be met on a practical and workable basis.7& 8 but prime data source is Fig. In types with inherently lower ferrite content. These figures represent approximate two sigma tolerance levels based on the data studied. Ostrom.g. 7.2 FN at a measured 11 FN (Type 308 and 308L). Research Suppl. 297-s RESEARCH S U P P L E M E N T ! . Supplemental minutes of November '72 WRC Advisory Subcommittee minutes and phone conversation of 1/16/73..0 FN at 10 to 15 FN calculated are reasonable values for this variable if excellent chemistry is available. 5..7 FN ± 5. a. Schaeffler.. 166-169 (Dec.0 FN ± 4.3 FN ± 3. 35 (11). "Calibration Procedure for Instruments to Measure the Delta Ferrite Content of Austenitic Stainless Steel Weld Metal". 69-s to 72-s (1973). "Determination of Ferrite in Type 347 Stainless Steel Weld Deposit".5 FN respectively. c.. 459-s to 468-s (1954). DeLong. 2 sigma (95%) tolerance where the avg ferrite content is: 0-8 FN 8-14 FN (see above 3a & 6) ±1. "Constitution Diagram for Stainless Steel Weld Metal". b. Welding Journal 52 (2). if the supplier is required to meet 5 FN minimum the customer's receiving test requirement should be set at 3." Iron Age. IIW Doc. offers the most d e p e n d a b l e a p p r o a c h to determining the ferrite content of weld deposits. 1952). Conclusion 8 must not be interpreted to mean that the ferrite content of a weld deposit cannot be measured or calculated to closer limits than ± 4 FN. d. Subcommittee Meeting of Nov.. Simpkinson. "Detection of Ferrite by Its Magnetism.3 FN ± 2. the standard deviations for GMAW tests were close to those of the GTAW tests and the trends were similar. T.3 FN (a) The estimated tolerances would probably be lower if the average of multiple measured FN determinations were used. c. 12. The data show that the total tolerance in such case may have to be as high as ± 3.06% electrode carbon. both known and u n d e f i n e d .8 FN (Types 316 and 316L) and this increases to a b o u t 1. G. From various sources it is concluded that two sigma levels of about 1. 680 and 680-B (November 1949). but this deserves more study.0 FN for GTAW and GMAW deposits averaging around 11 FN. the range of differences between measured and calculated ferrite seems lower than in the types with inherently higher ferrite levels. A. The s t a n d a r d deviation for m e a s u r e d F e r r i t e N u m b e r in GTAW increases as the ferrite content increases over t h e range studied. With GTAW and GMAW deposits a spread of up to about ± 3. 11..GTAW up to 0. Schoefer. where a specification requires a given ferrite range to be met both measured and calculated — requires the acceptance of rather broad tolerances because standard deviations.5 FN or % ferrite for covered electrode deposits using the Schaeffler Diagram. A..0 FN ± 3. T. 11-631-72. Similarly. 10. 8. T. Direct m e a s u r e m e n t of ferrite. Comparison of the Schaeffler and DeLong Diagrams for inert gas shielded deposits.5 FN ± 4. Round Robin Testing Programme 1971-1972". Rosendahl. W.6 FN at calculated ferrite of 6 FN and less and about 2. b.. Fleischmann. Research Suppl. Based on much less data than were studied for GTAW. although it requires some allowance for test variations as described in conclusion 3. "The Measurement of Delta Ferrite in Austenitic Stainless Steels"..0 FN ± 3. which will also cover the influence of pad size and preparation. 56. Pending the completion of the WRC cooperative program on covered electrode deposits. 526-s to 533-s (1956). versus about ± 4.. L. 6. if a maximum of 10 or 15 FN is req u i r e d of the supplier the receiving limit should be set at 12. Variations in FN measurements on multiple pads of the same filler metal heat. 316L and 309 GTAW deposits. The variables involved in calculation seem greater in total than the variables involved in measurement. "Ferrite in Austenitic Stainless Steel Weld Metal. The reconciling of both calculated and measured ferrite content within one frameowrk — e. receiving acceptance tests should allow for variations between the supplier's'tests and the receiving tests. WRC Bulletin 132. E. IIW Document ll-C331-70. V. 308L and 347. W. "Measurement and Effects of Ferrite in Stainless Steel Weld Metal. 7. 1968. and Lavigne. e. August. 4) ± 5. The Welding Journal. 4.8 FN was found for Type 309 at about 11 measured FN. DeLong. For average to poor c h e m i s t r y c h e c k s these values should be increased appreciably.. A. 164-167 (February 1949)..4 FN (see above 4. 2. The Welding Journal. R. 10 in New York" (Advisory Subcommittee of the High Alloys Committee of the Welding Research Council). and Ratz.4 to 4. E. References 1. Metal Progress. 308L and 309. To provide for test-to-test variations in measured GTAW and GMAW ferrite. such as 308.