ISSN (Print) : 0974-6846

Indian Journal of Science and Technology, Vol 9(39), DOI: 10.17485/ijst/2016/v9i39/101403, October 2016 ISSN (Online) : 0974-5645

Comparative Evaluation of Impact Strength of
Dissimilar Metal Weld between T91 and 304SS
Prepared by SMAW and GTAW Techniques
Narinder Pal Singh Dhaliwal1*, Rutash Mittal2, Salwinder Gill1, Paras Khullar1
1
Mechanical Engineering Department, Chandigarh University, Gharuan, Mohali – 140413, Punjab, India;
nps_dhaliwal@yahoo.com, salwinder53@gmail.com, erparaskhullar@gmail.com
2
Mechanical Engineering Department, MIMIT, Malout - 152107, Punjab, India; rutashmittal@gmail.com

Abstract
Objectives: The main objective was to evaluate the better joint between dissimilar metals T91 (ferritic) and 304SS
(austenitic) prepared by SMAW and GTAW in accordance to their impact strength. Methods/Statistical Analysis:
Welding joints between T91 and 304SS were developed using two welding consumables 308L and 309L by SMAW and
GTAW respectively. 4 plates of dimension 175mm x 100mm x 6mm were used for welding each of 304SS and T91. Total 9
specimens were prepared according to ASTM A370 standards (55mmX10mmX6mm) for Charpy impact testing, three each
from weld bead, HAZ 304SS and HAZ T91 each from SMAW and GTAW welded plates. Findings: Impact strength testing was
done with help of Charpy V-notch toughness machine. The standard specimens for Charpy impact testing was placed in the
machine and values of impact strength were recorded one after another. As per results, the average impact strength of the
weldment prepared by GTAW technique is marginally more as compared to SMAW technique for all sections. The impact
strength of the GTAW specimen increases from 304SS HAZ to T91 HAZ passing through the weld metal. The best impact
strength is obtained at T91 HAZ of GTAW joint which is 232.67 joules. This increased value of impact strength may be due
to movement of carbon particles and formation of carbides and intermetallic. The enhancement in the impact strength is
encountered due to increase in micro-hardness which is also published by various authors in the characterization of the
weldments. The average impact strength of the weldment prepared by GTAW technique is more as compared to SMAW
technique. The dissimilar metal joint prepared by GTAW technique is better joint in accordance to its impact strength.
Improvement/Applications: Dissimilar metal joints between austenitic stainless steel and ferritic stainless steel are
widely used in various fields like nuclear power plants, steam generators of power plants etc.

Keywords: Dissimilar Metal Welding, Gas Tungsten Arc Welding (GTAW), Impact Toughness Comparison, Shielded Metal
Arc Welding (SMAW)

1. Introduction
single component. In1, Corrosion resistance along with
Dissimilar metal joint is to compile various metal prop- outstanding mechanical properties makes stainless steel
erties in order to reduce costs of material and increase for numerous applications in engineering applications.
the equipment performance. Dissimilar weldments have Dissimilar metal joints between austenitic stainless steel
numerous potential applications in the oil, gas, nuclear, and ferritic stainless steel are widely used in various fields
aerospace, chemical, electronics and fossil fuel fired like nuclear power plants, steam generators of power
power generation industries due to its profit in economy plants etc2.
and also because of better performance of two differ- Welding is a process of achieving complete coales-
ent metals, like corrosion resistance and strength in a cence by joining two or more pieces of the same or

*Author for correspondence

5 2 Vol 9 (39) | October 2016 | www. compare to austenitic steels.5. T91 is such a ferritic alloy mium.04 0. Chemical composition of T91 Component C Cr Fe Mn Ni P S Si Wt. and welding. uses a flux coated consumable electrode to build the weld. In11. Chemical composition of 304SS Component C Cr Fe Mn Ni P S Si Wt. Chemical composition of electrodes Material C Mn P Si Cr Ni Mo Cu Fe (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) 308L for 0. in use for the last two decades successfully in power plant Austenitic stainless steels have face-centered cubic crys. 304SS.29 89.0434 18. 0. mium as the main alloying element because of high This requires those materials which have very high corrosion resistance. is supplied to build an  arc  between the is from 170 bar to 230 bar. 18Cr-2Mo.114 8. among all the types of austenitic stainless steels. the type that contains about 0.e. the last stages of metal and electrode to be joined7.75 0. Materials and Methods arc welding  (MMA  or  MMAW). GTAW and these steels have molybdenum but some contains alumi- SMAW. Steel is 200 times more corrosion strength properties.indjst. content.15% of carbon and minimum 16% 304 is widely used in the various industries because of chromium and certain amount of manganese and nickel high corrosion resistance. is a manual welding method which tenitic stainless steel) were used to fabricate the joints. 0.45 1. and should be creep resistant. present study austenitic and ferritic stainless steel that meets these conditions. In5.75 0. GTAW. high strength and good weld to retain its structure at different temperatures.08% carbon. GTAW is a process which melts after heating 29Cr-4Mo-2Ni are common ferritic grades9. service.5% to 27% chromium and by the use of heat and or pressure. T91 (ferritic stainless steel) and 304SS (aus- shielded arc welding.009 0.69 66. 8% nickel along with 0. T91 is used in modern boilers where the steam from In6 . from of total stainless steel production consists of austenitic. In3. the super heater and the pipes carrying the steam to the Generally.118 0. Mostly two types of welding processes were used i. SMAW which is also known as manual metal 2. 70% 9% chromium and up to 1% molybdenum.170 Table 2. These steels are also comparatively less expen- oping monolithic structures and it is often accomplished sive. It is also called 9Cr-1Mo steel because it contains tal structure which is austenitic crystalline structure. In8. This material has been steels were used to draw comparison of impact strength.9 18-21 9-11 0.75 Rem. Type 304 (18-8) is a type of austen- stainless9 steels have better engineering properties as itic steel which consists of a minimum of 18% chromium.5. % 0.010 0.5 309L for 0. turbine should withstand these extreme conditions10.061 0.0266 0.75 Rem. but less corrosion resistant. metals and joins them with help of an arc developed between the metals and a non-consumable tungsten elec- trode. In4. Table 1. This means.04 0. GTAW 2.76 7.569 0. also known as Tungsten Inert Gas (TIG) num or titanium. which do not deteriorate with time. They consist of about 10.  stick welding or flux In this study.381 Table 3. this is the only method of devel.04 0.04 0. from a welding power supply an alternating or direct super heater is about 570 °C to 600 °C and pressures range electric current. Ferritic ability properties. This type is corro- because of the lower amount of nickel and chromium sion and oxidation resistant because of 18% chromium.28 0. stainless steels consist of 10-20% chro.77 0. Comparative Evaluation of Impact Strength of Dissimilar Metal Weld between T91 and 304SS Prepared by SMAW and GTAW Techniques different materials. % 0. in present study very less amount of nickel but grades contain lead.org Indian Journal of Science and Technology . SMAW 2. resistant than mild steel and it contains about 11% chro. 29Cr-4Mo. 26Cr-1Mo.9 22-25 12-14 0.

Terminology of single V butt joint. Plates after SMAW. Narinder Pal Singh Dhaliwal. Figure 5. Terminology of single V butt joint is shown in Figure 1. In14 The chemical composition of the materials used is given in Tables 1 and 2. The filler metal in the form of the elec- trode is added in making of the joint. Welding joint between Figure 2. the standard specimen size for Charpy impact test- ing is 55mmX10mmX6mm as shown in the Figure 4. In 17 .indjst. Two welding consumables 308L and 309L were used for developing the dissimilar weld using shielded metal arc welding and gas tungsten arc welding respectively. Plates after welding are shown in Figures 2 and 3. HAZ 304SS and HAZ T91 each from SMAW and Figure 4. Total 9 specimens were prepared three each from weld bead. the chemical composition of the filler material used in SMAW and GTAW is entailed in Table 3. V groove was made at 55° of joining the plates with the help of a shaper machine. Rutash Mittal. Root face= 2mm. In16. Charpy test specimens. SMAW and GTAW respectively. T91 (ferritic) and 304SS (austenitic) was developed using SMAW and GTAW. Salwinder Gill. Standard Charpy impact test specimen dimensions. After that (All dimensions in mm) impact testing was done on them at Charpy impact tester as shown in Figure 6. Root gap= 2mm. In13. After placing the plates on a levelled surface welding operation was done to make V butt joints by SMAW and GTAW techniques. Vol 9 (39) | October 2016 | www. GTAW welded plates as shown in Figure 5.org Indian Journal of Science and Technology 3 . type 18-10 have high resistance to corrosion due to they have tremendous applications in power engineering. Austenitic stainless steels. Two dissimilar welding joints were prepared each by SMAW and GTAW techniques. Paras Khullar In 12. Included angle= 55° Figure 1. In15. According to ASTM A370. Plates after GTAW. 4 plates of dimension 175mm x 100mm x 6mm were used for welding each of 304SS and T91. 304 stainless steel has high-temperature applications because of lower carbon content which helps to minimize carbide precipitation. Two types of welding elec- trodes E308L and E309L were used to weld the joint for Figure 3.

The average values of impact strength of both combinations are plotted as shown in Figures 8. 9. Charpy V-Notch impact test results (Joules) of SMAW SMAW WELDING SPECIMEN SPECIMEN DESCRIPTION VALUE AVG NO. Specimens after Impact Testin.33 Figure 7. (JOULES) VALUE 1 SMAW HAZ T91 230 221. (JOULES) VALUE 1 GTAW HAZ T91 208 232.67 BEAD 2 98 3 162 1 SMAW HAZ 182 180. Table 4.67 2 218 3. 2 218 3 216 1 SMAW WELD 162 140. Figure 8. The standard specimens for Charpy impact testing was placed in the machine and val- ues of impact strength were recorded one after another. Charpy V-notch toughness machine.indjst.67 2 256 3 234 1 GTAW WELD 198 213. Various specimens after impact testing are shown in Figure 7. Impact strength of SMAW specimens. Results and Discussions 3 208 Impact strength testing was done with help of Charpy V-notch toughness machine.67 304SS 2 182 3 178 The average values of impact strength at different sections of weldment obtained from GTAW technique are comparatively more than that of SMAW technique. Different values of impact toughness recorded are shown in tabular form as in Tables 4.org Indian Journal of Science and Technology .5. 1 GTAW HAZ 304SS 230 218. Charpy V.10.Notch impact test results (Joules) of GTAW GTAW WELDING SPECIMEN SPECIMEN DESCRIPTION VALUE AVG NO. 4 Vol 9 (39) | October 2016 | www.33 2 BEAD 218 3 224 Figure 6. Comparative Evaluation of Impact Strength of Dissimilar Metal Weld between T91 and 304SS Prepared by SMAW and GTAW Techniques Table 5.

4(5):45–9. 6. Available from: www. Selection of austenitic electrodes for welding stainless steel) prepared by shielded metal arc welding dissimilar metals. 5. 2003. Impact strength of GTAW specimens. John Wiley & Sons: Figure 10. Figure 9. 3rd (Edn).1986. [cited 2016]. 4.I. Kakani SL. The dissimilar metal joint prepared by GTAW technique is better joint in accordance to its impact strength. Funderburk SR.S standard. 9. Micro structural and mechanical characterization of different zones of T91/T22 weldment.org Indian Journal of Science and Technology 5 . 7. Mittal R.67 joules. New Delhi. 3. 813-1986 (Revised). [cited 2015 Nov 12]. Khanna Publishers. why dissimilar welding is needed and how to select proper filler metals. properties and global standards [Internet].813. The International Operational Department.iso.com. the average impact strength of the weldment prepared by GTAW technique is marginally more as compared to SMAW technique for all sections. 2. B. Conclusions 10. Welding Journals. The average impact strength of the weldment prepared by GTAW technique is more as compared to SMAW technique.com. sisting T91 (ferritic stainless steel) and 304SS (austenitic 11. Technology. Vol 9 (39) | October 2016 | www. Comparison of Impact strength of SMAW & US. Paras Khullar and gas tungsten arc welding by the use of 308L and 309L welding electrodes respectively. [cited 1986]. Welding Metallurgy.hotsited. The American Welding Society [Internet]. Salwinder Gill. 2002. Kakani A.resource. Rutash Mittal. The present work was carried out to study the impact International Journal of Surface Engineering and Materials toughness comparison of dissimilar metal weldment con. Available from: www. Welding Innovation.aws. International Organization for Standards [Internet]. Kou S. 4. GTAW specimens. 1947. 2016. 5:1–10. Key concepts in welding engineering.indjst. 26(10):601–20. Welding Company. 2014 Jul–Dec. References 1. Available from: https://law. 14(2):1–2. Schaeffer AL. The impact strength of the GTAW specimen increases from 304SS HAZ to T91 HAZ passing through the weld metal. 2012. Steel grades.pdf.org/pub/in/bis/S10/is. Indian Standards (BIS) on Welding [Internet]. Parmar RS. 5. 1997. Welding processes and technology. Sidhu BS. Welding today. Material Science. New age international Publishers: India. Kobe Steel Ltd.com. The best impact strength is obtained at T91 HAZ of GTAW joint which is 232. No. 2nd (Edn). Narinder Pal Singh Dhaliwal. As per results. com. Kobelco. 8. Available from: http://steel-grades. The enhancement in the impact strength is encountered due to increase in micro-hardness which is also published by various authors in the characterization of the weld- ments18. This increased value of impact strength may be due to movement of carbon particles and formation of carbides and intermetallic.

characteristics of 304 stainless steel weldments in TIG and 13.ir/_ 16. Available from: http://mhriau. Dickinson DW. Comparative DouranPortal/Documents/ASTM%20E23%20(impact%20 evaluation of mechanical properties and micro structural test)_20160406_233024. Kah DH. International Journal of Current Steels. Prakash S.ac. Nikolaev YK. Mechanical property variation 17. Weld ability of Ferritic Stainless SMAW welding processed. within Inconel 82/182 dissimilar metal weld between low Corrosion and mechanical strength of welded joints of alloy steel and 316 stainless steel. Supplement to the Welding Journal. Standard test methods for notched bar electron beam and friction welding. 2014 Feb. Weld ability eval- Investigation on AISI 304 austenitic stainless steel to AISI uations of modified 316 and 347 Austenitic stainless steels. Supplement to the Welding Journal. 2016 Apr 06]. Lundin CD.pdf. International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping. Comparative Evaluation of Impact Strength of Dissimilar Metal Weld between T91 and 304SS Prepared by SMAW and GTAW Techniques 12. 32(5):3036–50. 1981 Aug:1–8. Karthik G. Timofeev BT. Lee CH. S2:1–7. Karzov GP. Karuppuswamy P. 18. impact testing of metallic materials [Internet]. 1999 Apr. Gorbakony AA. Pressure Vessels and Piping. [cited 2011 May. Reddy GM. 1988 Feb:35–46. Singh S. 85(9):635–46. Osorio V. Engineering and Technology. Amarnath V. 4140 low alloy steels dissimilar joints by gas tungsten arc. 76(5):299–307. Lee J. Materials and Design. 15. 6 Vol 9 (39) | October 2016 | www. 2008 Sep. Jin JE.org Indian Journal of Science and Technology . 14. Menon R. Jang C. International Journal of downcomers for RBMK reactors.indjst. Arivazhagan N. ASTM E23. Kim JS.