You are on page 1of 10

Journal of Materials Processing Technology 160 (2005) 128–137

Dissimilar metal friction welding of austenitic–ferritic stainless steels
V.V. Satyanarayana a , G. Madhusudhan Reddy b , T. Mohandas b,∗

Vasavi College of Engineering, Hyderabad 500 031, India Defence Metallurgical Research Laboratory, Kanchanbagh, Hyderabad 500 058, India Received 30 June 2003; received in revised form 20 May 2004; accepted 20 May 2004


Abstract Continuous drive friction welding studies on austenitic–ferritic stainless steel combination has been attempted in this investigation. Parameter optimization, microstructure–mechanical property correlation and fracture behaviour is a major contribution of the study. Sound welds are obtained at certain weld parameter combinations only. The mechanical properties of dissimilar metal welds are comparable to those of ferritic stainless steel welds. Evaluation of the joints for resistance to pitting corrosion revealed that the dissimilar welds exhibit lower resistance to pitting corrosion compared to the ferritic and austenitic stainless steel welds. Interface on the austenitic stainless steel side exhibited higher residual stress possibly due to its higher flow stress and higher coefficient of thermal expansion. © 2004 Published by Elsevier B.V.
Keywords: Dissimilar metal welding; Friction welding; Austenitic stainless steel; Ferritic stainless steel; Microstructure; Notch tensile strength; Hardness; Impact toughness; Pitting corrosion; Residual stresses

1. Introduction Several situations arise in industrial practice which call for joining of dissimilar materials. The materials employed are location dependent in the same structure for effective and economical utilization of the special properties of each material. The joining of dissimilar metals is generally more challenging than that of similar metals because of difference in the physical, mechanical and metallurgical properties of the parent metals to be joined. In order to take full advantage of the properties of different metals it is necessary to produce high quality joints between them. Only in this way can the designer use most suitable materials for each part of a given structure. The growing availability of new materials and higher requirements being placed on materials creates a greater need for joints of dissimilar metals. Joining of ferritic stainless steels are faced with the problem of coarse grains in the weld zone and heat affected zone of fusion welds and consequent low toughness and ductility due to the absence of phase transformation during which grain refinement can occur [1,2]. In general austenitic stainless steels are easily weldable. When austenitic stainless steel joints are employed in cryogenic and corrosive environment the quantity of ferrite in the welds must be minimized/controlled to avoid property degradation during

Corresponding author. Tel.: +91 40 444 0051; fax: +91 40 444 0683.

service [3,4]. In addition these steels are prone to sensitization of their fusion welds. These problems have been addressed by solid state welding processes, such as friction welding [3–6]. Dissimilar metal combination between ferritic stainless steels and austenitic stainless steels is commonly employed in TiCl4 reduction retorts. This calls for welding of the combination. Such transition joints are necessary because austenitic stainless steels with superior creep strength and oxidation resistance are required in the higher temperature regions, while ferritic stainless steels to avoid the problem of nickel leaching by molten magnesium. Welding of ferritic to austenitic stainless steels is considered to be a major problem due to difference in coefficient of thermal expansion, which may lead to crack formation at the interface, formation of hard zone close to the weld interface, relatively soft regions adjacent to the hard zone; large hardness difference between the hard and soft zones and expected differences in microstructure may lead to failures in service [7–9]. Solid state welding is a possible solution for these problems. This paper reports on a study that has been taken up to develop an understanding on the friction welding characteristics of austenitic stainless steel–ferritic stainless steel dissimilar metal welds. Detailed microstructural examination in the different regions of the welds and a correlation between the microstructure and mechanical properties and corresponding fracture behaviour forms the goal of the study and therefore assumes special significance since such detailed studies are

0924-0136/$ – see front matter © 2004 Published by Elsevier B.V. doi:10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2004.05.017

0 18. while the ferritic stainless steel consists of coarse and elongated grains of ferrite (Fig.17 Table 3 Experimental design matrix Trial run AF1 AF2 AF3 AF4 AF5 AF6 AF7 AF8 Friction force (kN) (X1 ) 4 6 4 4 6 6 4 6 Forge force (kN) (X2 ) 8 8 12 8 12 8 12 12 Burn-off (mm) (X3 ) 3 3 3 5 3 5 5 5 the form of rods of 18 mm diameter obtained from the plate material. Experimental 2.32 Mn 0. the machine is rapidly braked. Hardness measurements included hardness survey across the interface. Metallography Low magnification stereo microscope of Leitz make was employed for observing the bead shape. 2. Fractographic examination was carried out under a Leo scanning electron microscope. Satyanarayana et al. Few more trials were carried out with different parameters in order to get defect free welds. . The experimental matrix is given in Table 3. 2. rotational speed and displacement) were continuously monitored and recorded. The main parameters employed are friction force.%) Composition AISI 430 AISI 304 C 0. 1. Based on this a 23 factorial design of experiments was adopted [10]. To arrive at suitable welding parameters trials were carried out with the same parameters as employed for ferritic–ferritic stainless steel and austenitic–austenitic stainless steel [5. Parameter optimization also forms a major contribution of the study. (b) ferritic stainless steel (AISI 430). 2. notch tensile test and Charpy ‘V’ notch impact testing.28 P 0. 2. The relative motion generates frictional heat which causes the material to soften and plastically deform. Parent metals The parent metals employed in this study are AISI 304 austenitic stainless steel and AISI 430 ferritic stainless steel.03 0. For friction welding studies the material employed was in Table 1 Chemical composition of parent metals (wt.1. Trial welds were made by varying one parameter keeping other parameters constant to find the limits. 2). forge force. After a preset displacement (known as burn-off) has occurred.4 S 0.4 1.6].2. The austenitic stainless steel contains equiaxed grains of austenite with occasional twinning. and the pressure is increased to generate a high quality solid state weld.4.V. Friction welding Welding was performed on a continuous drive friction welding machine at a speed of 1500 rpm in a continuously and step less variable speed machine of 15 kN capacity. To observe deformation and microstructural features Leitz optical microscope was employed. During welding the primary parameters (friction force. 1). Examination of the joints revealed defects like delaminations (Fig. In notch tensile and impact tests the notch was located at the Table 2 Mechanical properties of parent metals Property AISI 430 AISI 304 Ultimate tensile strength (MPa) 488 600 Yield strength (MPa) 380 250 Elongation (%) 28 58 Fig. Optical microstructure of parent metals: (a) austenitic stainless steel (AISI 304). In the continuous drive friction welding process a stationary member is pressed against a rotating member with an axial pressure.06 0.4 Ni – 8.4 0.3.V. forge force and burn-off (length loss during friction/forge stage).38 Cr 17. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 160 (2005) 128–137 129 not hitherto reported. Mechanical testing The mechanical tests consist of Vickers hardness. The composition and mechanical properties of the starting parent metals are given in Tables 1 and 2.06 Si 0. respectively.04 0.

Standard specimen configurations were employed for notch tensile and impact toughness testing (Fig. Typical micrograph showing delamination. Residual stresses were measured in the weld bead center region using peak shift sin2 ψ technique with Cr K␣ radiation. 4). 2.5 M HCl. The regression equations enabled to understand the influence of the friction welding parameters on mechanical properties. 5) and data would yield only the parent metal properties. 2. The location of notch is positioned at the center of the weld as shown in Fig. Plain tensile specimen was not included as failures occurred outside the weld (Fig. Statistical analysis of the data The mechanical property data were subjected to statistical analysis to understand the influence of individual effects of the parameters and their interactive effects on the properties.7. Corrosion testing The weld joints and the parent metals were tested for pitting corrosion in an electrolyte of 0. Satyanarayana et al.130 V. Regression equations were obtained from this analysis. The potential at which the current increases abruptly after the passive region was taken as pitting potential (Epit ) [11]. .5 M H2 SO4 + 0. Specimens that exhibit more positive potential value were considered to be those having better pitting resistance.5. Correlation coefficient was also obtained from the statistical analysis. Residual stress measurement Residual stress measurements were carried out across the interface employing X-ray stress measurement technique. Steady state potential was recorded 10 min after immersion of the sample in to the electrolyte and the potential was raised anodically using scanning potentiostat at a scan rate 2 mV/s. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 160 (2005) 128–137 Fig. 3. The equipment employed for the purpose was model X 2002 of American stress technologies. 2. 2. ANOVA technique of Yate’s algorithm was employed to study the significance of coefficients [10].V. interface. Before measurements the flash was machined and the surfaces were polished electrolytically.6. The electrochemical measurements were made using a potentiometer dedicated for the purpose.

The flash was observed to be from ferritic stainless steel and austenitic stainless steel did not participate in the flash formation suggesting deformation is mainly limited to ferritic stainless steel side. . 7 shows that the deformation is mainly confined to ferritic stainless steel. (b) Charpy ‘V’ notch impact sample in bond zone. 3.V. 8 indicate that all the welds consist of fine equiaxed grains of ferrite. 3. The grain size is in general Fig.V. Satyanarayana et al. 6 exhibits higher flash with increase in burn-off and forge pressure. 5. Typical cross-sectional view of the weld (AF7) and microstructure details at the center and periphery are presented in Fig. Results 3.1. Schematic diagram showing location and orientation of: (a) notch tensile sample. Appearance of friction welded plain tensile test specimen after test. The microstructure in the central region of the welds shown in Fig. Fig. Metallography and visual examination A view of friction weld joints shown in Fig. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 160 (2005) 128–137 131 Fig. Configuration of: (a) notch tensile specimen. The central region consists of fine grains while peripheral region consists of coarse grains. 4. (b) Charpy ‘V’ notch impact specimen.

The interface is narrow and straight in high burn-off welds. The central region consists of equiaxed grains and is confined to ferritic stainless steel. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 160 (2005) 128–137 shown in Fig. Highest hardness (265 Hv) and lowest hardness (195 Hv) were obtained at low burn-off coarser in the low forge pressure welds as well as in high friction pressure welds.2. 8).V. friction pressure aids grain coarsening (Fig. Visual view of friction welded ferritic–austenitic stainless steel joints. 10). At low friction and low burn-off parallel bands are observed in the austenitic stainless steel side adjacent to the interface (Fig. Satyanarayana et al. It is to be noted that forge pressure aids in grain refinement while. Typical friction weld and its cross-sectional view (AF7). . The hardness of the weld region is in the range 195 Hv (min) to 270 Hv (max). Typical microstructural features in various regions of the weld across the interface are Fig. 7. notch tensile strength (NTS) and Charpy ‘V’ notch impact toughness data of the welds are presented in Table 4.132 V. Fig. 6. The austenitic stainless steel side consists of parallel banded features adjacent to the central equiaxed grain structure at the interface. Adjacent to this region bent and elongated grains are observed on the ferritic stainless steel side. 9. 3. Mechanical properties Hardness.

/ Journal of Materials Processing Technology 160 (2005) 128–137 Table 4 Mechanical properties of AISI 430–AISI 304 friction welds Run Parameter (X1 –X2 –X3 ) Notch tensile strength (MPa) Trial 1 AF1 AF2 AF3 AF4 AF5 AF6 AF7 AF8 4–8–3 6–8–3 4–12–3 4–8–5 6–12–3 6–8–5 4–12–5 6–12–5 668 647 610 663 640 600 616 689 Trial 2 630 635 629 607 669 628 619 637 Impact toughness (J) Trial 1 15 18 16 18 21 14 25 22 Trial 2 17 19 17 20 18 17 28 25 Hardness at center Trial 1 247 208 214 222 270 208 242 231 Trial 2 236 195 210 230 265 215 235 229 133 Fig. Satyanarayana et al. (b) AF2. Fig. (c) AF3. .V. Micrographs of friction welds at center (4–12–5). 8.V. 9. Microstructure of friction welds at center: (a) AF1.

388X2 X3 Y = 228. 11). 0.56 + 8. Residual stresses Residual stress data at interface on the austenitic stainless steel side are tabulated in Table 6. and at high and low forge pressures. while they were low (∼221 MPa) at low burn-off. A consistent trend is noticed although the differences are marginal. At low notch tensile strength the fracture features are of cleavage while for high NTS the features of fracture contain ductile micro-voids. 3. Weld center also has a stress value almost equal to ferritic stainless steel side of the interface. Satyanarayana et al. Hardness is influenced by forge pressure and interactive effect of other parameters.38X3 + 2. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 160 (2005) 128–137 Fig. .3.44X2 + 12. 10. 12.98 X1 —friction force. X3 —burn-off. 11 reveals that hardness is higher on austenitic stainless steel side of the interface. The magnitude of the stresses range from a minimum of 180 MPa to a maximum value of 260 MPa. Regression analysis of the data in the form of regression equations is presented in Table 5.V.98 in respect of hardness.68X1 X2 Y = 18. coefficient is about 0. X2 —forge force. 1 2 3 Response Notch tensile strength Impact toughness Hardness Regression equation Y = 636. Impact toughness was on the higher side at high burn-off while notch tensile strength followed a reverse trend. respectively.7 in respect of notch tensile strength. 3.134 V. 13 reveals that the stresses are higher on the austenitic stainless steel side of the interface. Similar trends were noted in the impact specimens.81X1 X3 − 11. Fractography The fractographs for low and high notch tensile strength are presented in Fig. It is observed that individual parameters of friction welding do not have an influence on notch tensile strength and only friction and forge pressure exhibit an interactive effect.707 0.6 + 13. The stress distribution trends follow hardness distribution across the weld (Fig.69X1 X2 − 4. Typical stress distribution across a weld (AF7) shown in Fig. On an average the stresses are maximum at high burn-off (∼241 MPa average). 11.84 0. Fig. Notch tensile strength ranged from a minimum of 600 MPa to a maximum of 689 MPa while impact toughness was in the range 15–28 J.4. Microhardness traverse along the bond line of a typical weld (4–12–5).89X1 X2 X3 Coefficient of correlation 0. Typical hardness distribution across the weld (AF7) shown in Fig.84 in the case of impact toughness and 0. no.75 + 2. Burn-off has an influence on impact toughness while forge and burn-off have an interactive effect. Micrographs of the friction weld at the interface: (a) AF6 (6–8–5). (b) AF3 (4–12–3). The correlation Table 5 Regression equations for response function and their coefficient of correlation S.

Satyanarayana et al. 13. Table 6 Residual stress at the interface of austenitic stainless steel and weld Run AF1 AF2 AF3 AF4 AF5 AF6 AF7 AF8 Parameter (X1 –X2 –X3 ) 4–8–3 6–8–3 4–12–3 4–8–5 6–12–3 6–8–5 4–12–5 6–12–5 Residual stress (MPa) 210 260 180 230 235 250 225 260 in Table 7. (b) and (c) AF8 (6–12–5)—high notch tensile strength. Pitting corrosion studies indicate that among the welds ferritic–ferritic stainless steel joints exhibit highest pitting resistance (Epit 1023 mV) while the dissimilar joints exhibit least resistance (Epit 931 mV). The pitting potential (Epit ) was used as a measure of resistance to pitting.V. Epit values for various types of welds are presented Table 7 Pitting potential of friction weld joints and parent metals Type of joint Ferritic–ferritic Austenitic–austenitic Austenitic–ferritic Parent metal AISI 304 Parent metal AISI 430 Pitting potential (mV) 1023 940 931 914 988 Fig. Residual stress distribution traverse across the bond line of a typical weld (4–12–5).V. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 160 (2005) 128–137 135 Fig. 3. Similar metal welds exhibit marginally superior performance compared to the corresponding parent materials. 12.5. . 14. Fractographs of notch tensile samples: (a) AF6 (6–8–5)—low notch tensile strength. Pitting corrosion A typical polarization curve is shown in Fig.

as evidenced by the plain tensile test results shown in Fig. Deformation and microstructure The different thermal and physical properties of the materials to be welded in dissimilar metal welding (heat capacity. For this reason austenitic stainless steel does not undergo extensive deformation while ferritic stainless steel specimen undergoes extensive deformation. relation between hardness and temperature) generally results asymmetrical deformation. The fine grain size at the central region is due to dynamic recrystallization. Consequently. 4. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 160 (2005) 128–137 sequent lowering of flow stress in this region. Discussion 4. the overall bond region remains stronger than the parent material (Fig.V. A comparison of properties of similar material combination welds with the dissimilar combination welds (Table 8) shows that the properties of austenitic stainless steel–ferritic stainless steel compare well with the ferritic stainless steel welds. Satyanarayana et al.136 V. Typical polarization behaviour dissimilar austenitic–ferritic stainless steel weld. A narrow zone of deformation bands (Fig. in that at low strength and toughness the fracture is predominantly cleavage as against high energy ductile micro-void fracture when the strength and toughness are high. thermal conductivity. It is opined that the grain size in the weld region dictates the mode of fracture in that fine grain gives raise to ductile fracture while.5–30 Austenitic–ferritic stainless steel Notch tensile strength (MPa) – 600–697 Impact toughness (J) – 16–28 . 7). 7). 5. 4. Fracture features of the notch tensile and impact specimens are as per expected trends. [12–16]. Despite the coarse grain structure at the periphery. Mechanical properties and regression analysis Fig. aluminium to steel. the flow stress–temperature relations for each substrate will have an important influence on the joint properties produced during friction welding. This further substantiates that the deformation is confined to ferritic stainless steel and the interface properties are dictated by the properties of ferritic stainless steel alone. The central region consists of fine grains. Analysis of mechanical property data suggest that hardness is dictated by forge pressure and an interactive effect of friction and forge pressure while toughness is controlled by the interaction of friction pressure and burn-off. 14. while the peripheral region consists of coarse grains (Fig. The same phenomenon has been reported during friction welding of dissimilar welds namely aluminium to copper. coarse grain promotes cleavage fracture. The view that only ferritic stainless steel takes part in upset collar formation is substantiated by the shortening of the ferritic stainless steel rod only.2. etc. 7) on the austenitic stainless steel suggests that this region undergoes deformation although it does not take part in the upset collar suggesting that the deformation is not extensive.1. The zone of deformation band width is wider at low burn-off than at high burn-off could be attributed to lower heat content and high flow stress of the region at low burn-off than when the burn-off is high that aids in the spread of heat resulting in increased heat content and con- The mechanical and thermo-physical properties of dissimilar substrates will have a major influence on the properties of the dissimilar joints because the temperature attained by each substrate markedly depends on the thermo-physical properties of the two substrates and on the joining parameters selected. Fine grain structure exhibited high strength and low toughness while coarse grain microstructure exhibited a reverse trend. The temperature of the peripheral region would be higher [17] and therefore exhibits coarse grain size. Austenitic stainless steel have lower thermal conductivity and greater hardness at higher temperatures compared to ferritic stainless steels. This suggests that toughness is dictated by the heat content Table 8 Comparison of notch tensile strength and impact toughness of similar and dissimilar combinations of austenitic and ferritic stainless steel Material Austenitic stainless steel Notch tensile strength (MPa) Parent metals Welds 830–896 693–753 Impact toughness (J) 213–214 71–148 Ferritic stainless steel Notch tensile strength (MPa) 547–590 660–784 Impact toughness (J) 6–7 8. titanium to steel. The formation of upset collar (flash) on the ferritic stainless steel side only is due to low strength of the ferritic stainless steel. In general high forge pressures resulted in high toughness and notch tensile strength. The coarser grain structure observed in low forge pressure combination can be attributed to lower degree of working of the material than at high forge pressure that results in higher degree of working.

Banerjee Director. Wiley. New York. Effects of welding parameters on hard zone formation at dissimilar metal welds. [4] E. Kou.W.V. [15] D. T. Mater. Madhusudhan Reddy. deformation is confined to ferritic stainless steel only. K. Ramachandran. 57 (1978) 325s–333s. References [1] F. Higher flow stress of austenitic stainless steel resulted in the deformation confined to a very narrow region consisting of deformation bands. Met. 4. Friction welding of dissimilar metal combinations— aluminium and stainless steel. in press.J. Okita.L. W. T.F. G. National Welding Conference.. S.V. Z. Residual stresses Higher residual stresses at the austenitic stainless steel side of the interface can be attributed to the higher flow stress of the austenitic stainless steel aided by higher coefficient of thermal expansion of the austenitic stainless steel. [16] K. 383–386. Trutnev. Weld. Szumachowki. Madhusudhan Reddy. (vi) Notch tensile strength. Process.R. 1972.V. Satyanarayana) is thankful to the Principal and the management of Vasavi College of Engineering. (iv) The mechanical properties of austenitic–ferritic stainless steel welds are similar to ferritic stainless steel welds. Mater. [3] W. J. Hyderabad for their continued support during this work. Effect of ferrite on stress corrosion cracking in duplex stainless steel weld metals at room temperature. 5. C. hardness and impact toughness can be expressed in terms of the process parameters by regression equation obtained by statistical analysis. Technol. [6] V. G. D. [12] T. Venkata Rao. D. Aritoshi. Wiley. Inertia friction welding of 1100 aluminium to type 316 stainless steel. T. Baeslack. Pickering. Puquette. 7th ed.J. January 2002. Ahmed.V. Mohandas. 4. Dynamic recrystallisation phenomena of commercial purity aluminium during friction welding. Mater. [14] S. Continuous drive friction welding studies on AISI 430 ferritic stainless steel welds.Y. [17] S. Johns. 1984. 20 (37) (1973) 18–19. Phani Babu. which are a combination of heat input and degree of working. pp.A. Jessop. The authors are thankful to Dr. Mater. (49) (1995) 431–443. Tsang. 21 (1976) 227–268. M. Satyanarayana et al. These deformation bands are likely to consist of high density of dislocations and hence the observed higher residual stress peak is confined to this region. [7] S. [9] Welding Hand Book. (8) (1987) 27s–37s. Oldfield. pp.W. Mohandas. Wang. Join. Friction Welding Report WRC Bulletin 204. 4. H. Madhusudhan Reddy. Allabhakshi. K. Pitting corrosion The excellent improvement in the pitting corrosion resistance of the welds compared to parent metal could be due to the presence of dynamically recrystallized microstructure and possible composition uniformity resulting from faster cooling rates that do not favour elemental segregation. American Welding Society. [13] V. [5] V.V. pp. [10] Kempthorne. Studies on weld overlaying of austenitic stainless steel (AISI 304) with ferritic stainless steel (AISI 430). November 1995. vol. Omar. Acknowledgements The authors express their gratitude to Defence Research and Development Organisation for the financial support to carry out this programme. W. [11] J. J. (v) The toughness and strength properties of dissimilar metal welds are better than ferritic stainless steel parent metal. Continuous drive friction welding studies on AISI 304 austenitic stainless steel welds. Welding Metallurgy. India. M. DMRL for his continued encouragement. These conditions aid in stabilizing the microstructure as well and therefore favour toughness improvement at higher burn-off. H. Test techniques for pitting and crevice corrosion resistance of stainless steels and nickel-base alloys in chloride-containing environments. Int. Svar. V. Indian Institute of Welding. 73–75. Z. New York. Savage. C. 234–244. Satyanarayana. 1987. communicated June 2003.F. Cryogenic toughness of SMA austenitic stainless steel weld metals part-1 role of ferrite. Penetration depth of the X-rays is of the order of 20 ␮m and the stresses measured are within ±15 MPa.. Chennai. Hardness and notch tensile strength are mostly influenced by an interactive effect of friction and forge pressures.S. Weld. Satyanarayana. J. Rev. 93–128. The friction welding of steel to aluminium alloy VAD-1. (18) (2002) 219–225. Weld. 32 (3) (1987) 162–169. Int. Higher burn-off aids in spread of heat due to the availability of friction time. Ramarao. Reid. (iii) Higher forge pressure combinations exhibit fine grain size and increased friction pressure aids in grain coarsening. Tsubakino.4. Manuf. Doughty. . 77 (2) (1998) 86s–93s. Nafiz. Design and Analysis of Experiments. Weld Institute Research Report. [2] S. (ii) In friction welding of austenitic–ferritic stainless steel.S.. Rev.K. Sci. G.B. Weld. J. 1966. Physical metallurgy of stainless steel developments. Tomita. Proi. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 160 (2005) 128–137 137 and spread of heat. Fukumoto. Process. Corrosion 34 (1979) 46. Friction welding of St-Al and Al and Cu materials. G. Technol.3. Ahmet. Yashan. One of the authors (V. Sci.V. Technol. Welding Research Council.V. Paper 8 [8] A. Bekir. Conclusions (i) Continuous drive friction welding has been used to successfully join austenitic–ferritic stainless steel.