II 1531 -04

(IIC-275-04)
(IXH-590-04)

The Measurement of Ferrite Number (FN) in Real Weldments Final Report

J C M Farrar
1. Introduction.
The amount of ferrite in stainless steel weld metals can have an influence on a wide
range of properties including corrosion resistance, toughness, long term high
temperature stability, resistance to hot cracking etc. It is therefore essential for some
applications that the ferrite level is controlled within specified limits and that methods
are available for checking that specified levels have been achieved (1).
There are a number of ways of doing this, of which the most commonly used are:
a) Direct microscopic measurement on suitably prepared specimens. This is a
destructive method, which cannot readily be used on a completed welded
fabrication, but it can be used on representative welding procedure samples. In
principal, both manual and automatic image analysis techniques are available but
at higher ferrite levels, above about 20FN, it becomes increasingly difficult to
quantify the complex structures, which are present in the reheated regions of some
multipass stainless steel welds.
b) A magnetic method using equipment such as an instrument making use of a
permanent magnet and measuring tearing-off force (e.g., a MagneGage) or an
instrument utilizing eddy current to measure magnetic properties (e.g., Fisher
Feritscope) and a probe, which is in direct contact with the specimen or weld
metal surface. This is a non-destructive method, which requires the use of
appropriate secondary standards in order to calibrate the equipment and enable
accurate measurements of FN to be made.
c) Prediction of FN can be carried out based on the chemical composition of the
weld metal. The most widely used predictive diagram, and the one recognised by
the ASME code is the WRC-1992 diagram (2).A number of other systems are
available, including some based on Neural Networks. All these methods depend
on an accurate chemical analysis of the actual weld deposit. Certified
compositions of the welding consumable can be used, but it must be recognised
that these may well be original heat or cast analyses (in the case of solid wires and
rods) and will not necessarily be the same as the deposit composition, particularly
if there is significant dilution by parent materials and different welding
parameters have been used.
For the reasons given above it is widely accepted that direct measurements using suitably
calibrated magnetic instruments provide the most reliable assessment of the FN level in

stainless steel weld metals (3). The instruments cover the practically important range of 0
to about 50FN, and even higher, and IIW certified secondary calibration standards to
cover this range are readily available from the National Institute of Standards and
Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, USA.
In 1992 and 1993 round robins, to measure FN using magnetic instruments, were
completed by the members of IIW sub commissions II-C and IX-H. Ten laboratories
tested small, fairly homogenous samples of weld metal with a smooth surface. The FN
values of the different samples ranged from about 1 to about 105FN. Further details of
the results of these round robins carried out are given in reference 4. The overall
conclusion was that the accuracy of measurement of FN was about 10% of the measured
value. That means a nominal measurement of 5FN would be reported as about 4.5 to 5.5
and a nominal value of 40FN would be reported as about 36 to 44FN by the various
laboratories. An ISO technical report (5) is available for those who require further
background.
It must be emphasised that the above exercise was carried with small, idealised
specimens with a reasonably homogenous microstructure and a smooth test surface. Real
welds, particularly multi-pass welds, are seldom homogenous and often have a rippled
rather than smooth surface. In1998, IIW sub commissions II-C and IX-H decided to carry
out a further FN Round Robin using real weldments rather than small laboratory
specimens. It was also decided to include chemical analysis of the weld deposit and
review prediction of FN via the chemical analysis. This document is an attempt to
summarise the results of this large project and to present the findings in a way, which will
be useful to both the specifiers and manufacturers of stainless steel fabrications and those
who have an interest in the control and measurement of FN in weld metals.
2. Background
This Round Robin was organised to measure ferrite (FN) levels in the weld metal of five
weldments, designed for different nominal FN levels in the range from zero to about
40FN which it was believed would cover most commonly used specifications. The five
weldments were identified as follows:

A 308H- A controlled ferrite 308H type weld metal, where FN is typically

specified in the range 3 8FN to give long term thermal stability combined
with hot cracking resistance. Base material was type 304 stainless steel.

B 2205- A 22 % Cr austenitic-ferritic duplex stainless steel weld metal,

where FN is typically specified in the range 30 50FN to give a combination
of corrosion resistance and mechanical properties. Base material was a 22%
Cr duplex stainless steel.

C - 309Mo- A 'mixed welding', 309Mo weld metal commonly used for

welding carbon steels to austenitic stainless steels. FN levels are not routinely
specified but levels have to be sufficiently high, typically 15 20 FN to
accommodate dilution from the carbon steel. Base materials were a type 316L
stainless steel and plain 0.2% carbon steel.

D - 16-8-2- A controlled ferrite 'lean 316H' weld metal with a similar design
philosophy and FN range to 308H, but with improved pitting corrosion
resistance for some applications. Base material was type 316L stainless steel.

E - 316NF- A 316 weld metal with negligible ferrite designed for nonmagnetic and cryogenic applications. Increasing the manganese content
reduces the risk of hot cracking. Base material was type 316L stainless steel.

The specimens were designed as 25mm single-sided butt weldments and were welded
with realistic dilutions from the base plates. They were not intended to simulate researchgrade FN pads with negligible dilution used in previous exercises.. Welding was carried
out using GTAW with 1.6mm diameter solid wire for the root run and one fill pass, with
argon gas purging of the back of the weld root. Shielded metal arc welding, using 4mm
diameter electrodes, was used for the remainder of the weld. Each weldment was sliced
into several pieces, and various areas on the surfaces of these specimens were marked
and identified for measurements by the Round Robin participants, of which there were
18. The general arrangement of the specimens is shown in Figure 1.
In addition, some locations on the weld caps and weld roots were finished by common
surface preparation techniques to allow an assessment of the effect of these surface
finishes on the measurements. These were:
a) As-welded with light manual wire brushing to remove any residual slag.
b) Lightly polished with an abrasive flap wheel to remove weld ripples but not to
change the overall weld profile and reinforcement.
c) Ground flush to remove all weld reinforcement and leave the weld flush with the
plate surfaces.
d) Filed flush to produce a surface finish typical of that specified by AWS for allweld metal FN measurement samples.
Figure 1 (below) shows the general arrangement of the test weldments including the
following:
a) The different surface finishes applied.
b) The FN measurement locations numbered 1 to 22 and
c) The location of the OES chemical analysis.

4
5
6

Aswelded

Light
polished
Ground
surface

13
14
15
10

11
12
7
1

As-welded

8
9

2
3

Large sample

Ground
surface

Light
polished

21

Filed
surface

20
19

1
16
2

17
18

Small sample

22
19

Chemical analysis

The overall project was divided into three parts.

Part I -Results of FN Measurements. Each laboratory was asked to carry out FN
determinations for each of 22 designated areas on each sample, using their own in-house
equipment calibrated against IIW secondary standards, and using the procedure outlined
in reference 6. The participants were asked to make 5 or 10 measurements in each
specified area, depending on the size of the area, and supply the mean value as well as
maximum and minimum values for each area.
Part II - Results of Chemical Analyses. Each laboratory was asked to carry out a
chemical analysis using optical emission spectroscopy (OES) on a slice of each of the
weldments. For those elements for which OES is not considered sufficiently accurate
(e.g. nitrogen), metal chip sample were supplied so that a dedicated combustion method
could be used.
Part III - Prediction of FN values. Finally, each participant was asked to use their own
analysis to predict an FN for each specimen using their own preferred method, e.g. WRC92 diagram, commercial software, etc.
3.Background Reports
The following documents give the data generated by the round robin and the statistical
analyses carried out.
J C M Farrar, and Z Zhang, Preliminary Summary Report on Round Robin Experiment
Ferrite Measurement and Prediction in Real Weldments, IIW Documents II-1440-01
and IX-H-512-01.
T A Siewert, E A Siewert, J C M Farrar and Z Zhang, Statistical Evaluation of a RoundRobin Experiment: uncertainties in Ferrite Measurement in Weldments. IIW Documents
II-C-224-02 and IX-H-531-02.
J C M Farrar and Z Zhang, Round Robin on ferrite measurement and chemical analysis
- Statistical Review of chemical analysis. IIW Documents II-C-238-02 and IX-H-541-02
J C M Farrar and Z Zhang, Round Robin on ferrite measurement and chemical analysis
- Further review of chemical analysis. IIW Documents II-1510-03 and IX-H-562-03.

4.FN Measurements
4.1 Overall Results
It is not intended to include detailed information in what is intended to be practical guide.
For this reason the results are summarised for each of the five samples and some general
conclusions are given.

308H

The results fall into three groups. The bulk of the data are in the range 3 to 6 FN,
which are within the specified design limits for the consumable, but there are two
groups of higher values at ~8 and ~10 FN, which are from the high dilution root
area. With the exception of one or two outlying points, the data are all within about
1.5 FN of the mean for each area. Some laboratories appear to consistently
overestimate FN level whilst others underestimate relative to the mean. The dilution
effect is picked up on the cross sections with increasing FN towards the root.
Overall scatter is about 20% of the measured value.

2205

The mean values for the areas range from 30 FN to about 42 FN with some slight
increase in scatter between the various laboratories as the FN increases. Scatter is
7 FN at the 35 FN level, increasing to 9 FN at the 42 FN level, again about 20%
of the measured value. Values of 30 to 40FN are typical for this weld metal and
within the design range.
This weldment also exhibited increased FN levels arising from dilution in the root
area, whether measured directly on the root or on the cross sections.
Again there is evidence that some laboratories consistently over-estimate the FN,
whilst others underestimate.

309Mo

This sample was a mild-steel to stainless steel dissimilar joint made with type
309Mo consumables. The effects of dilution are most marked in the root (with FN
values down to 1), and a similar trend evident on the cross sections.
For areas that produced means between 1 and 5 FN, the scatter of results about the
mean is fairly small and is about 1.5 FN - with the exception of one laboratory.
The other data are in the range 13 to 18 FN with a scatter of 3 FN. Values are as
would be expected for this weldment.
This weldment presents the clearest evidence that some laboratories consistently
over-estimate the results, whilst others underestimate, and this is particularly
apparent in the root area.

16.8.2

The base material for this sample was type 316L plate, and the root area as
measured directly and ni the cross sections show an increase in FN in the range 4 to
5.5 FN, again with a scatter of about 1 FN (ignoring two outlying results). The
results fall into two populations with the bulk weld metal values in the range 1.5 to
3 FN which is within the specified design limits. Scatter at this level is similar to
other samples at about 1 FN.

316NF

This sample was made with a nil ferrite type 316 consumable.
reported either zero ferrite or very small fractional values in all positions.

All laboratories

In general terms it can be seen that between laboratory scatter for real weldments is about
20% of the measured value, compared with about 10% for the homogenous laboratory
samples tested in the previous Round Robin.
4.2 Effects of weld surface finish
A statistical analysis of the data showed that surface finish was a significant variable.
However there was no consistent trend across the four samples analysed. The 316NF
sample was not considered because all FN results were zero or very close to zero.
The two lower FN samples, 308H and 16.8.2 both showed a small increase in FN as the
surface finish changed from polished, to as-welded, to ground and finally filed. In the
308H sample the increase was just over 2FN with a mid-range value of about 4.5FN. In
the 16.8.2 sample the increase was only about 0.5FN with a mid-range value of about
2FN. These results would appear to show an effect of strain induced martensite arising
from cold work during the surface grinding operations. Martensite gives a magnetic
response which is additional to that from the ferrite and this would explain the small rise
in the ground and filed samples.
With the two higher FN samples, 2205 and 309Mo both showed a larger increase in FN
as the surface finish changed from ground, to filed, to polished and finally as-welded. In
the 2205 sample the increase was about 8FN with a mid-range value of about 34FN. In
the 309Mo sample the increase was about 3.5FN with a mid-range value of about 17FN.
These results might suggest some short range variation within the top layer if a weldment
with FN decreasing as more weld metal is removed.
In general terms, the results indicate that different surface finishes can give rise to
variations of about 10-12% of the mean measured value. A slightly higher percentage
variation was found with the 308H sample but absolute differences were still quite small.
Unfortunately there is no consistent pattern arising from the effect of surface finish but in
practical terms it would be desirable to test the weld surface as close to its original
condition as possible consistent with good probe contact and consistent readings.
5. Chemical Analysis
Chemical analyses were carried out using OES on the same sample from each of the 5
weldments by 17 of the 18 participating laboratories. An all-weld metal area was marked
on a cross sectional slice taken through each butt weld to indicate the area to be analysed.
Each laboratory analysed the same nominal area but it is recognised that the need to reprepare the specimen between individual analyses would introduce a small degree of
variability. The variability of the results is summarised in Figure 1.
This next part of the report assesses the actual chemical analysis results in terms of
recognised specifications and compares the precision of the results with those given in
ASTM E1086 (6). This specification is based upon the results of optical emission
spectroscopy, carried out on certified reference materials.

Variability of Element Analysis by Sample (Logged Data)

Inter Quartile Range (IQR) Plotted

Sample D

Sample A
Sample C

Sample E
1

Sample B

0
IQR
0
0
0

Sample B
Sample E
Sample C
Sample
Sample A

0
Nb

Cu

Element

Si

Mo

Sample D
Mn

Ni

Cr

Figure 2.
The above plot shows variability of element analysed by sample with the most variable
elements shown to the left. It is particularly interesting to note that the major stainless
steel alloying elements (Cr, Ni, Mn, Mo, Si, N & C) show lower variability than residuals
and non-deliberate alloying additions. It should be noted that a number of labs did not
report niobium and therefore this data set is limited.
The sample plots are arranged with those with most overall variability at the back of the
diagram and those with least at the front. From this it can be seen that Sample B was
most variable (2205) whilst sample D (16-8-2) was least.

5.1 Scope
The elements considered most important were Carbon, Manganese, Silicon, Chromium,
Nickel, Molybdenum and Nitrogen since these are all relevant to the formulae used for
prediction of FN. Residual and trace elements are not considered here but results can be
found in the original reports.
Nitrogen was not included in the precision data since it was not considered in E1086,
.
The precision values considered in this document are equal to two standard deviations for
the appropriate element taken from E1086 Table 2 Precision Data. This would be
expected to encompass about 95% of the measured results. The values used were those,
which were related most closely to the compositions in this report. The data in E1086 was
obtained from a Round Robin involving 15 laboratories and certified reference material
(parent stainless steels, not weld metals). If the 17 labs participating in the FN round
robin were similar in precision to those reporting in E1086, one or possibly two results
might be expected to lie outside the limits.

5.2 Summary of results

The results are best summarised in a series of tables, which for each element analysed,
and for each sample, show how many labs gave results outside the specification limits,
and how many were outside the precision limits based on E1086.
Table 1. Summary of results for main elements analysed and showing number of laboratories
reporting results outside specification limits and outside precision limits expected based on
E1086.
Carbon

Sample

Type

Nominal %

Labs out of
spec

Labs out of
precision

A
B
C
D
E

308H
2205
309Mo
16-8-2
316NF

0.05
0.04
0.03
0.05
0.025

1
4
2
1
0

3
5
2
2
0

Sample

Type

Nominal %

Labs out of
spec

Labs out of
precision

A
B
C
D
E

308H
2205
309Mo
16-8-2
316NF

1.1
1.2
0.9
1.1
3..2

0
0
0
0
1

2
8
4
1
5

Sample

Type

Nominal %

Labs out of
spec

Labs out of
precision

A
B
C
D
E

308H
2205
309Mo
16-8-2
316NF

0.7
0.4
0.6
0.5
0.2

0
0
0
1
0

9
14
10
7
7

Sample

Type

Nominal %

Labs out of
spec

Labs out of
precision

A
B
C
D
E

308H
2205
309Mo
16-8-2
316NF

19
23
23
17
19

0
0
1
2
0

1
1
3
4
2

Type

Nominal %

Labs out of

Labs out of

Manganese

Silicon

Chromium

Nickel

Sample

spec

precision

308H
2205
309Mo
16-8-2
316NF

9
9
12
8
15

3
3
2
0
1

0
3
3
0
1

Sample

Type

Nominal %

Labs out of
spec

Labs out of
precision

A
B
C
D
E

308H
2205
309Mo
16-8-2
316NF

0.1
3.5
2.5
1.2
3

0
1
0
2
0

0
1
2
10
4

Sample

Type

Nominal %

Labs out of
spec

Labs out of
precision*

A
B
C
D
E

308H
2205
309Mo
16-8-2
316NF

0.17
0.1

1
1

* not in E1086

A
B
C
D
E
Molybdenum

Nitrogen

Analysis of these tables shows that:

a) Out of a total of about 450 individual analyses, about 6% gave values outside the
specified ranges. The worst elements were C and Ni with about 2% each, but it
should be noted that the aim nickel levels in the test samples tended to be towards
the lower end of the specification range, which would increase the risk of some
results falling outside the range. Carbon measurements made with OES, used by
some participants, tend to be less accurate than those made using some other
techniques.
b) Of the 450 results, about 25% were outside the precision limits given in E1086.
Since these E1086 limits are based on two standard deviations, only about 5%
would be expected if the round robin laboratories were as precise as those in
E1086. It should be noted that E1086 data was based on homogeneous certified
reference materials, whereas the round robin analyses were made on weld metal,
with each lab analysing a slightly different sample after re-preparation.

c) The worst elements from a precision point of view were Silicon, Manganese and
Molybdenum. Fortunately the first two are at quite low levels and have a minor
effect on FN predictions. Of more concern is the Mo precision, but can be seen

from the above table that one sample gave rise to most of the problems. Sample D
had a Mo of about 1.2%, compared with about 3% in samples B,C and E. It may
be that a number of laboratories have limited experience in measuring Mo at this
level in stainless steels.
d) It is pleasing to note that precision levels for two of the most critical elements
used in FN prediction, namely Cr and Ni were relatively good with only about
12% of round robin labs reporting results outside the E1086 limits.

6. Prediction of FN using chemical analysis

Each of the participants was asked to calculate the FN number for each sample based on
their own individual analysis. The thirteen laboratories, which complied with this request,
chose to quote FN based on the WRC-92 diagram.
Using the WRC-92 formulations, namely Creq = %Cr + %Mo + 0.7%Nb, Nieq = %Ni +
35%C + 20%N + 0.25%Cu, the Chromium and Nickel equivalents* from the analysis
data provided by the participants FN values were calculated.
The overall mean predicted value was compared with the mean measured values taken
from the undiluted weld metal regions of the cross sections which were chosen to be
representative of the area used for the chemical analysis. The results are shown below:
Table 2. Comparison of mean predicted FN and mean measured FN.
Sample

Weld Metal

Mean Predicted FN

Mean Measured FN

308H

3.9

4.5

2205

45

36.5

309Mo

15.9

15.5

16.8.2

2.5

316NF

6.1 Comparison between measured and predicted FN results

Sample A
(308H)

The predictions using the WRC diagram ranged from 1.4FN up to 11.2FN, although the
overall mean of 3.9 agreed quite closely with the measured mean of 4.5.

: In Creq calculation, 0.02% was used as the value for Nb content.

Nine laboratories predicted FN values within 2FN of the measured mean.

Sample B
(2205)

The predictions using the WRC diagram ranged from 29.2FN up to 78.6FN, although the
overall mean of 45FN was closer to the measured mean of 36.5FN.
Only seven laboratories predicted FN values within 10FN of the measured mean.

Sample C
(309Mo)

The predictions using the WRC diagram ranged from 10.9 up to 27.6. However, the
overall mean of 15.9 agreed very well with the measured mean of 15.5.
All but two laboratories gave WRC predictions within 5FN of the measured mean.

Sample D
(16.8.2)

The predictions using the WRC diagram ranged from 1.4FN up to 7.1FN. The overall
mean prediction was 2FN which is in good agreement with the mean measured value of
2.5FN.
At this low FN value all but three of the laboratories predicted FN values within 1FN of
the measured mean.

Sample E
(316NF)

The predictions using the WRC diagram ranged from -5.4FN up to 1.2FN. The overall
mean prediction was effectively zero (or a small negative FN) and the measured mean
was also zero.
Since this weld metal was designed to be fully austenitic, the results are in line with
expectations.

7. What does all this data tell us?

7.1 Direct measurement of FN
Scatter
Previous work on smooth surface, homogenous laboratory specimens showed that scatter
between laboratories was about 10% of the measured mean value.
This work on real weldments shows that scatter between laboratories is about 20% of
the measured mean value. In many cases the same laboratories took part in both exercises
using the same equipment, procedures and calibration samples.

Dilution
The weldments also showed clear effects of dilution from the parent material. Results,
from root regions and areas close to the sidewalls of non-matching parent materials, were
very different from those of the bulk weld metal.
Surface finish
Surface finish of the area being measured has a significant but inconsistent effect. Tests
carried out on a number of typical finishes ranging from as welded (deslagged) through to
ground flush and smooth, showed a scatter of about 10% of the measured mean value.
Practical implications and recommendations
Magnetic instruments are suitable for measuring the FN value of weld metal in real welds
provided the following points are taken into account:
a) The equipment used should be properly calibrated against certified secondary
standards with designated FN values relevant to the material being tested.
b) To avoid effects of dilution, measurements should be made in the center of the
weld run away from root areas and weld toes unless these regions are being
specifically investigated.
c) There is a significant effect of surface finish on results, and if the effects of
possible strain induced martensite or FN gradients in the top weld layer are to be
avoided, then the welds should be tested in their original condition. Preparation
prior to testing should be kept to minimum consistent with good probe contact
and consistent readings.
d) The important factor is to remove any surface debris, such as slag, and to check
that there is good and consistent contact between the probe and the weld surface.
A number of consistent readings along an undiluted weld bead are a good
indicator.
e) Even when all the above are taken into account, scatter between laboratories of
about 20% of the mean measured value should be expected.
In practical terms this means that measurements up to about 10FN, which should
cover all controlled ferrite specifications for long term high temperature or cryogenic
toughness applications, may exhibit between laboratory scatter of about 2FN. This is
approximately in line with typical specifications, which often indicate a range of say
3 to 8FN. At the zero FN level laboratory agreement is good.
The other area of practical interest is that of duplex weld metals where FN values in
the range 30 to 60FN are typically specified. Measurements in this range may exhibit
between laboratory scatter of about 10FN. These relatively high scatter values
suggest that the specification ranges for duplex weld metals should be about 20FN if
differences between laboratories are to be taken into account. Fortunately such
relatively high variations in FN value do not have a major effect on critical properties
such as strength, toughness and corrosion resistance.

7.2 Chemical Analysis

Differences between laboratories
Differences between laboratories analysing the same sample must be accepted. The
samples analysed covered a reasonable range of stainless steel compositions although
they did differ somewhat from the most common grades such as 308L and 316L.
Statistically, about 6% of the entire individual element analyses would have fallen
outside the specification limits. However this figure is strongly influenced by the
results for carbon and nickel. The carbon levels were 0.05% or less and at this level,
OES is not the most accurate method. In cases of dispute over compliance with
specifications it is recommended that a combustion method be used.
Nickel levels in the 5 samples tended to be towards the lower end of the specification
range so that a normal distribution of scatter would lead to more readings being
outside the lower limits of the specification range. Nickel levels towards the middle
of the specification range should not present a problem.
If the above effects are discounted, the overall result is that about 3% or one result in
33 for the elements and compositions tested might be expected to fall outside
specified limits. In the light of the special nature of some of the compositions tested,
it might be argued that even this prediction is a little pessimistic and that a more
reasonable expectation might be about 2%, or one individual result in 50.
Users of analytical results should not be surprised if, from time to time, results for
individual elements fall outside specification limits
Comparisons with other Laboratories
Some indication of the accuracy to be expected for a given element in a given
stainless steel compositions can be found in ASTM E1086. Based on the precision
limits given in E1086, statistically about 5% of all results would be expected to fall
outside these limits. In fact about 25% were outside the limits. Since there is no
reason to believe that the two sets of laboratories were fundamentally different in
their performance, the most likely explanation is that weld metal is less homogenous
than wrought certified reference samples and in the case of the welds, the test area
would be very slightly different for each test.
The practical implication of this finding is that more variability in weld metals should
be expected, when compared with wrought materials and that differences in sampling
position will lead to yet further variability.
It should also be noted that some laboratories gave consistently good results across all
elements and samples whereas others were much more variable. It is impossible to
predict whether a laboratory will be more consistent or accurate than any other.
However, important considerations are:
i)

Independent accreditation of equipment and procedures.

ii)

Use of relevant alloy calibration standards and procedures.

iii)

Prior experience with the alloy composition in question, particularly if is

somewhat unusual.

7.3 Prediction of FN using chemical composition.

The prediction of FN by plotting on a diagram such as the WRC-92 diagram or using a
computed version of this or any other system is subject to two sources of error:
i)
The errors in input chemical composition.
ii)
Inherent errors in the predictive system.
The agreement between mean measured and mean predicted results for each sample,
when tested in the same area and away from dilution effects, was reasonably good as
shown in Table 2. However there is much greater spread of predicted results when
compared with measured values. At FN values of about 5 or less the scatter of predicted
values are at least 60% of the mean value. Even at higher FN values of 15 to 35 the
scatter is still about 30% of the mean. These are the extremes of scatter and many
laboratories appear to be able to predict values significantly closer to the mean.
In general terms it is reasonable to expect that predicted FN based on individual
laboratory chemical analyses are less accurate than magnetically measured values by a
factor of about two on average.
8. General Conclusions.
Magnetic measurements using small laboratory samples can be expected to give scatter
between laboratories of 10% of the mean value.
When magnetic measurements are carried out on real welds this scatter can be
expected to increase to about 20%.
When predictions of FN based on the WRC-92 diagram, are made using individual
laboratory chemical analyses, then the scatter can be expected to increase to about 40%
of the mean value.
For the most accurate assessment of weld metal FN, magnetic methods using appropriate
equipment should be used. The equipment should be calibrated using certified secondary
calibration samples appropriate to the values being measured. Users should be aware of
the effects of parent material dilution and surface finish, when real welds are being tested.
Even when using magnetic methods, some scatter of results must be expected.
Fortunately the levels of scatter are comparable with the weld metal specification ranges
likely to be selected for critical applications.

9. Acknowledgements
Firstly I must thank all those members of sub-commissions II-C and IX-H and their
colleagues who participated in the Round Robin and provided the data, without which
this report would not have been possible. Their support and encouragement over the years
the project has been in progress is much appreciated.
Secondly I would like to thank Drs T & E Siewert of NIST and my good friend Dr John
Brew of Warwick University for their invaluable help with the statistical analysis of a
very large database a task, for which, I am totally unqualified!
Finally I should thank my colleagues in the welding laboratory at Metrode Products Ltd
who produced the excellent test pieces and Dr Zhang who most efficiently managed the
very large database.
10. References
1. Lefebvre, J Guidance on specifications of ferrite in stainless steel weld metal.
Welding in the World 1993, 31 (6): 390 to 406.
2. Kotecki, D. J., and Siewert, T. A. 1992. WTRC-1992 Constitution Diagram for
Stainless Steel Weld Metals: A Modification of the WRC-1988 Diagram, Welding
Journal, 71(5): 171-s 178-s.)
3. ISO 8249:2000 Welding Determination of Ferrite Number (FN) in austenitic and
duplex ferritic-austenitic Cr-Ni stainless steel weld metals, ISO, Geneva, Switzerland.
4. Rabensteiner G. Summary of 5th round robin of FN measurements. IIW Document
II-C-902-92. International Institute of Welding.
5. ISO TR22824, Ferrite Specification (published Dec 2003), ISO, Geneva,
Switzerland.
6. Kotecki, D. J. FN Measurement Round Robin using Shop and Field Instruments after
calibration by Secondary Standards Final Summary Report. IIW document II1345-98.
International Institute of Welding.
7. ASTM E1086 Optical emission spectrometric analysis of stainless steels. American
Society for Testing and Materials.