You are on page 1of 6

Techniques and Standards for Measuring

Ferrite in Austenitic Stainless Steel Welds

A new method ot ferrite measurement is compared with


the WRC recommended practice

BY A. W. BREWER AND R. L. M O M E N T

ABSTRACT. A technique for con- strength at low t e m p e r a t u r e s , a methods, but is subject to error from
structing standards containing fer- reduction of corrosion resistance in (1) poor etching behavior of some
ritic stainless steel in an austenite certain environments, and enhance alloys. (2) the counting technique e m -
matrix is reported. Such a standard formation of sigma phase at high t e m - ployed, and (3) the aspherical shape
more closely resembles the metal- peratures (Ref. 1). of ferrite particles, particularly in
lurgical structure of a weld than either Thus it becomes extremely impor- welds. While variations on the order of
iron powder in a nonmagnetic matrix tant to be able to measure the ferrite 1 % ferrite for levels up to 4%, and
or various nonmagnetic coatings over content in austenite at levels between 2% for levels near 10% have been
a ferrite base. 1 and 12%. Because no dependable achieved, metallographic methods
Also, a different type of measuring technique for ferrite measurement are time consuming and not applica-
instrument is evaluated which utilizes has been f o u n d , the Welding Re- ble for a nondestructive test.
the interaction of magnetic particles search Council (WRC) has adopted M e a s u r e m e n t of t h e m a g n e t i c
with an alternating magnetic field. an arbitrary procedure which e m - response of a weld has proved to be
Data taken with this device are c o m - ploys the Magne Gage and stan- the simplest nondestructive method
pared with those obtained using the dards made with various thicknesses and is in widespread use. Two instru-
more c o m m o n magnetic type instru- of a nonmagnetic coating over a mag- ments are used in the majority of
ments. The new instrument has three netic substrate (Ref. 2). Ferrite levels tests. The Severn Gage employs a
advantages: (1) faster collection of are reported as ferrite numbers (FN) balance beam and compares the at-
data, (2) greater sensitivity to small (Ref. 3). This standardization of traction of a permanent magnet on
point-to-point fluctuations, and (3) measurement technique allows for one end to the weld and to differ-
ability to be used on large and/or better comparison of results from ent standards. This results in a range
rough weld surfaces. various laboratories. The FN is essen- for the ferrite content bracketed by
tially equivalent to the ferrite content that of two standards. A more precise
Introduction up to about 8%, but differs by in- estimate is obtained by the Magne
creasing amounts above this level. Gage. The force of attraction between
The presence of delta ferrite in the There are numerous methods for a permanent magnet and the weld is
range of 4-8% has proven effective in measuring the ferrite content of a measured against that applied to a
controlling microcracking of welds in weld, all of which, under certain c o n - lever arm by a spring. Values are o b -
austenitic stainless steels during cool- ditions, may lead to incorrect results. tained relative to the standards used
ing (Ref. 1). Partially ferritic cast They can roughly be classified into to calibrate the spring force.
stainless steels have i m p r o v e d empirical, magnetic, and non- The weak link in these ferrite
welding characteristics and in- magnetic categories. Empirical measuring techniques is calibration.
creased strength over purely austen- studies of the ferrite contents of welds The orientation of lenticular ferrite
itic alloys. On the other hand, more as a function of nickel and chromium particles, which affects the magnetic
than 10% ferrite can contribute to a
equivalent alloying constituents have response, will vary within a weld, and
r e d u c t i o n in ductility and i m p a c t
established diagrams showing ap- thus welds made using identical
proximate ferrite content as a function materials will not always give the
of composition. The first such dia- same magnetic response. A homo-
gram was prepared by Schaeffler geneous array of spherical ferrite in a
A. W. BREWER is Senior Development (Ref. 4), and has recently been im- homogeneous matrix will not neces-
Specialist and R. L. MOMENT is Senior proved by DeLong (Ref. 5) and Hull sarily give the same response as a
Research Specialist, Rockwell Interna- (Ref. 6) to include the effect of nitro- weld having the same total ferrite c o n -
tional, Rocky Flats Plant, P.O. Box 464,
gen and other elements. tent. However, this latter type of stan-
Golden, Colorado 80401.
This work was performed under con- Nonmagnetic techniques include x- dard should be more easily repro-
tract AT (29-1 )-1106 for the Albuquerque ray diffraction, Mossbauer-effect and duced than that made from weld
Operations Office, U.S. Energy Research metallography. The latter one has beads.
and Development Administration. been used extensively to check other As noted above, the WRC has

WELDING RESEARCH S U P P L E M E N T I 159-S


adopted National Bureau of Stan-
dards standards comprised of vary-
ing thicknesses of a nonmagnetic
coating over a magnetic substrate.
These are to be used with the Magne
Gage to calibrate it to the ferrite num-
ber scale. These standards bear no
relation at all to the physical situation
of ferrite in an austenite matrix, and
cannot be used with an instrument
such as the Ferrite Meter, described FERROMAGNETIC
below whose readings are adversely PIN
affected by materials of high elec-
Fig. 1 — Ferrite Meter probe detail
trical conductivity such as copper or
aluminum.
The present study was undertaken
with two goals. The first was to eval-
uate an instrument which utilizes a The ferrite meter probe develops a
different technique than the Magne voltage which depends on the amount
Gage for detecting the presence of of ferrite present, and this is read out
ferrite. The second was to prepare a on one of four scales covering 0 - 1,
standard of ferrite in austenite which 3, 12 and 50% ferrite. Because the Fig. 2 — Scanning electron microscope
would be more closely related to ac- probe tip is hemispherical with a photograph of type 316 stainless steel
tual conditions existing in a weld, and 0.75 m m radius, it makes a point powder; X500, reduced 74%
which could be used with this instru- c o n t a c t w i t h the s u r f a c e to be
ment. measured, and thus can be used on
rough welds and to study point-to-
point variations across a weld. The
Ferrite M e t e r
volume of weld material influencing
Lassahn and Moment (Ref. 7) the readings has a radius of about
studied the suitability of using an 1.5 m m . This instrument would also
eddy current instrument to detect fer- be valuable for measuring ferrite in
rite in austenite. Pressed powder narrow welds such as those obtained
specimens of iron in Type 304 stain- using electron beam welding.
less steel and welds in this same alloy
were used, and it was concluded that Standards
ferrite levels of 1 % or more could
easily be detected. A phase-sensitive For any of the measuring methods,
eddy current system was used, with a the accuracy of the ferrite value ar-
probe having a nominal radius of rived at will depend on the calibra-
0.5 m m , and point-to-point ferrite tion of the instrument and the volume
variations within a weld were detect- of the weld actually measured. Weld
ed with good reproducibility. The spa- pads have been created to be used as
tial resolution of the system was standards, though orientation of the
0.75 m m and the relative ferrite c o n - ferrite stringers can change from
tent was determined to within an esti- point-to-point, and this makes it i m -
mated 0.04%. No good standards possible to create two series iden-
Fig. 3 — Scanning electron microscope
were available at that time to cal- tical to each other.
photograph of type 430 stainless steel
ibrate the system. The standard included with the fer- powder; X500, reduced 74%
A commercial instrument made by rite meter is supposed to represent
the Institute Dr. Forster* operates on 10% f e r r i t e , and consists of iron
a similar principle. The Ferrite Meter, powder mixed in a resin matrix. Point tures of steel powders, the National
Model 1.053, is battery powered and counting a photomicrograph of this Bureau of Standards found consid-
uses a s i n g l e - c o n t a c t p r o b e , the coupon yielded 9.9%, while measure- erable trouble in obtaining uniformity
design of which is shown in Fig. 1. An ment with a Severn Gage gave great- using a " V " tumbler dry (Ref. 8). To
alternating current is passed through er than 14%, the highest range avail- avoid this problem it was decided to
the excitation coil which is wound into able with the instrument. mix the powders wet in order to m i n -
two sections. This induces a voltage in It was concluded that a new set of imize agglomeration by static charg-
both parts of the receiver coil w i n d - standards which more closely ap- ing.
ings, which are connected in oppo- proximated actual welds would be Powders of +325 mesh 316L grade
sition. When the probe is kept away desirable. They should consist of fer- stainless steel were used for the aus-
from a metal surface, the output rite in an austenite matrix with the tenitic, and 430 grade for the ferritic
voltage is zero. However, when the tip compositions of each phase similar to components of the mixtures. Two sets
is b r o u g h t i n t o c o n t a c t w i t h an those of actual welds. (It is important of five standards were prepared, with
austenite-ferrite mixture, the mag- that the electrical conductivity of the nominal compositions of 1.5, 3.5, 5.0,
netic field is disturbed owing to the standard be equal to that of a weld.) 7.5, and 10.0 percent ferrite. Each
presence of the ferrite. This is p r o b - Powder metallurgy was chosen since sample was mixed mechanically in a
ably the same effect which influ- it lends itself well to uniform mixing of plastic vial using Freon TF as a vehi-
enced the eddy current probe in the two different phases. cle. The final slurry had a c o n -
earlier experiments. The m a i n p r o b l e m with m i x i n g sistency of wet mortar. After drying,
powders has been obtaining truly uni- standards were prepared from each
'Institute Dr. Forster, D-7410 Reutlingen, form or homogeneous distribution of mixture by pressing in a vacuum hot
Grathwohlstrasse 4, West Germany. the components. In preparing mix- press for 30 minutes at 22,000 psi and

160-s I J U N E 1 9 7 6
800 C. Longer pressing times or <a)
Table 1 — Data on Powder Pressed Ferrite Standards
higher temperatures resulted in the
precipitation of a third phase which
Den- Point
contained manganese and silicon, as
sity, count, Severn Magne Ferrite
identified by electron m i c r o p r o b e
Composition Series % % Gage Gage Meter
analysis. Densities of the pressed
samples ranged from 78.1 to 91.1 1.5% 430 in 316 #2 81.7 1.49 0.5- 1.0 0.35 0.35
percent of the theoretical value. 2.0% 430 in 316 #1 85.0 — 0.5- 1.0 0.3 0.5
Figures 2 and 3 show scanning 3.5% 430 in 316 #1 83.0 — 1.5- 2.5 1.2 1.2
3.5% 430 in 316 #2 79.1 3.2 1.5- 2.5 1.1 1.0
electron m i c r o s c o p e p h o t o m i c r o -
5.0% 430 in 316 #1 79.0 5.0 2.5- 4.0 2.2 1.8
graphs of the metal powders before 2.1
5.0% 430 in 316 #2 78.6 4.46 2.5- 4.0 1.5
pressing. They are essentially iden- 5.0% F e i n 316 91.1 4.4 7.5-10.0 6.1 4.3
tical in shape and size. The uni- 7.5% 430 in 316 #1 84.0 7.5 7.5-10.0 2.9 3.3
formity of distribution of the 430 type 7.5% 430 in 316 #2 78.1 7.5 7.5-10.0 3.2 2.8
stainless steel in the 316 type matrix 7.5% F e i n 316 90.5 7.3 12.0-15.0 9.6 6.5
can be seen in Fig. 4. A series of 10.0% 430 in 316 #1 82.0 — 7.5-10.0 5.0 4.4
photomicrographs were taken of each 10.0% 430 in 316 #2 78.6 10.2 7.5-10.0 5.1 4.2
standard to verify homogeneous dis- 10.0% F e i n 316 88.5 9.9 12.0-15.0 12.0 8.2
persion of ferrite and also to use for
point counting. (a) Two series of standards were prepared using type 430 stainless steel powder mixed with type 316 stainless steel
powder. Samples from each series are noted as #1 and #2. Three additional standards were prepared using powdered Fe
instead of the type 430 stainless steel.
Ferrite M e a s u r e m e n t s
The ferrite content of each stan-
10 I I I
dard was determined by point count-
ing, the Severn Gage, the Magne I SEVERN GAGE
Gage, and the Ferrite Meter. Point • MAGNA GAGE
counting was done on a minimum of I FERRITE METER
two photomicrographs of each stan-
dard using a grid of 1032 points each
time.
Results for both sets of standards
were quite similar and are given in
Table I. A plot of the data for one set is
;
/U
shown in Fig. 5. The Severn Gage / Y y^
brackets the ferrite content while the
other two instruments read a value.
All show a slightly nonlinear response
(with the exception of the Severn 0
A^y2 4 6 8
. IC

w*r%
•%#? FERRITE COMPOSITION FROM POINT COUNT
Gage on the 7.5 percent standard),
though it is apparent that their cal- . Fig. 5 — Measurements of ferrite in stan-
ibrations are not equivalent. The error dards: values obtained using various in-
in the Magne Gage readings is ± 0 . 5
percent ferrite, as determined from
%A > struments are plotted versus the value ob-
tained from point counting
data on the instrument and the graphs Fig. 4 — Micrograph of nominal 10% stan-
used to correct the dial readings to dard showing uniform ferrite (light par-
the ferrite values, while that for the ticles) dispersion; X250, reduced 74% tual concentrations. This leaves the
ferrite meter is ±0.15 percent below 3 Magne Gage and Ferrite Meter as the
percent and ± 0 . 6 percent up to 12 nondestructive measuring instru-
percent. ments to be evaluated. The Severn
less steel powder in order to study the
Eddy c u r r e n t s are sensitive to Gage is much less precise than these
effect of alloying on the magnetic re-
cracks or voids in a metal so there and thus is eliminated from further
sponse of ferrite. The data on these
was c o n c e r n that porosity in the discussion.
samples are listed in Table I and
pressed-powder samples might affect The Magne Gage and Ferrite Meter
plotted in Fig. 7. The Ferrite Meter
the readings. Accordingly, a series of have similar reading errors. On stan-
readings are about twice as high for
specimens was prepared from the dards composed of type 430 ferritic
the iron as for the ferritic stainless,
same 5 percent mixture of type 430 in stainless steel particles in a matrix of
while the Magne Gage readings are
type 316 stainless steel. Varying type 316 austenitic stainless, both in-
slightly less than three times higher. It
pressures were used to obtain spec- struments gave readings within 20
is important to note that the effect on
imens ranging between 55 and 94 percent of each other. These values
the two instruments is not the same
percent of theoretical density. Read- were about half of that obtained by
magnitude. However, one can see
ings from the ferrite meter on these metallographic point counting, and
that the chemical composition of the
coupons are plotted versus density in this discrepancy can be attributed to
ferrite in a standard will affect the cali-
Fig. 6, and while there is some slope the calibration procedures specified
bration of ferrite measuring instru-
to the curve, the variance between 75 for e a c h i n s t r u m e n t . A d d i t i o n a l
ments and thus their ability to accu-
and 95 percent density is less than 0.5 measurements were made on welds
rately measure ferrite in welds.
percent ferrite. Thus, it was con- in type 304 and Nitronic 40 stainless
cluded that the error associated with steel (21-6-9).* The data, plotted in
specimen density variations could be Discussion Fig. 8, show a good linear relation-
neglected. ship with deviations only for data on
Because the ferrite particles in the
Three additional powder metal- p o w d e r metallurgy s t a n d a r d s are
lurgy coupons were prepared using equiaxed, point counting is reason- 'Designation by Armco Steel Corpora-
iron instead of type 430 ferritic stain- ably reliable for determining the ac- tion.

WELDING RESEARCH S U P P L E M E N T ! 161-s


welds. This is a result of the ferrite case. By relabeling the abscissa, Acknowledgment
meter being able to read variations direct conversion to ferrite numbers R. B. Fischer offered valuable advice on
within a small volume of the weld and can be obtained. pressing the powders, and Dr. M. R.
thus detect point-to-point changes Alloying has a strong effect on the Harvey suggested the technique for mixing
while the Magne Gage averages over magnetic response of these instru- them. Thanks are also tendered to W. G.
a larger area, the entire weld in this ments to ferrite. The extreme case Thorvaldson for some comparative mea-
surements made on weld specimens.
c o n s i d e r e d in these e x p e r i m e n t s
compared pure iron to an iron-chro-
mium alloy, and differences by a fac-
tor of 2 to 3 were observed in the in- Discussion by H. C . C a m p b e l l
strument readings. Moment and Brewer propose to
Lesser compositional variations make standards for ferrite measure-
between ferrite in types 304, 308, and ment by powder metallurgy tech-
347, for example, would be expected niques from plus 325 mesh grains of
to have a smaller and perhaps negli- 430 and 316L stainless steel, with a
gible effect. But the calibration stan- few samples of " i r o n " (no other iden-
dards should consist of a ferritic alloy tification) mixed with 316L. They a d -
rather than pure iron. mit at the outset that "A h o m o -
Finally, the powder metallurgy geneous array of spherical ferrite in a
standards prepared in this study lack homogeneous matrix will not neces-
IOO
the a s y m m e t r i c a l ferrite stringers sarily give the same response as a
60 70 80 90
% THEORETICAL DENSITY found in weld structures. As such, weld having the same total ferrite con-
they could not serve to calibrate an tent," but then they forget all that in
Fig. 6 — Ferrite meter reading versus instrument used to make highly accu- their enthusiasm about this "stan-
pressed powder density for a nominal 5% rate measurements of ferrite in welds. d a r d " being " m o r e easily r e p r o -
ferrite standard
However, they do give a closer ap- d u c e d " than weld beads. It is equally
proximation to the metallographic true that NBS thickness standards
structure of a weld than either an iron "bear no relation at all to the physical
o MAGNA GAGE powder standard or a coated ferritic situation of ferrite in an austenite
• FERRITE METER plate. Variations from point to point in matrix." but the authors overlook the
a weld make it difficult to know the fact that arbitrary Ferrite Numbers are
ferrite distribution and level. However, internationally acceptable because
while the Magne Gage averages the they are traceable to pedigreed refer-
ferrite within a large area of the weld. ence standards.
the Ferrite Meter is able to detect Nowhere have the authors tied their
smaller zones of higher or lower fer- "standard ferrite" (the percent of 430
rite content. This is important when powder in their 316L compacts) to the
the distribution of ferrite in a weld is of true ferrite content of a weld. Not that
interest, as in evaluating resistance to it could be — the WRC Advisory C o m -
stress corrosion cracking. mittee and the National Bureau of
Standards have concluded that pres-
Conclusions ent knowledge does not permit de-
termining the absolute ferrite content
1. Standards of ferrite in austenite
0 2 4 6 8 10 of a weld (Ref. 9).
IRON COMPOSITION IN FERRITE MATRIX
can be made using powder metal-
The deviations in magnetic read-
BY POINT COUNT (%) lurgy techniques, though they are
ings which bothered Moment and
more difficult to prepare than the
Fig. 7 — Magne Gage and Ferrite Meter Brewer have already been explained
readings versus point count on three iron coated standards currently specified
in two major papers referenced in the
powder-type 316 stainless steel standards by the WRC.
articles they have quoted. S i m p k i n -
2. Ferritic stainless steel alloys give
son and Lavigne (Ref. 10) and Fleisch-
IO different responses than iron particles
mann (Ref. 11) concluded that there
when measured using magnetic field
£ 9 o POWDER STANDARDS can be no consistency in magnetic
F instruments.
- WELD SAMPLES readings unless made at magnetic
2 8 • OTHER SAMPLES 3. A n e d d y - c u r r e n t t y p e of
saturation.
UJ
t 7 m e a s u r i n g i n s t r u m e n t can easily
Since the Magne Gage and Severn
tr
ir
detect ferrite in the range of 0-10 per-
£6 Gage do use strong magnets, the
cent. It requires a calibration stan-
b r o a d a r e a w h i c h they s a m p l e
UJ 5 dard having the same electrical con-
h- b e c o m e s an a d v a n t a g e in deter-
V) ductivity as weld metal and cannot be
tr 4 mining average Ferrite Numbers. Be-
:o calibrated using the WRC coated
Li. cause of the strength of these probes,
standards.
point to point variations in weld fer-
or 2 4. The small probe size of the
rr rite are averaged out, whereas the
Ul Ferrite Meter allows variations from
Forster Meter reports a confusing
point to point within a weld to be mea-
mass of readings which the operator
sured. It is possible to take readings
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO must average.
on large and/or rough welds, or on
MAGNE-GAGE % FERRITE
small electron beam welds. To summarize, three comments
Fig. 8 — Ferrite Meter readings plotted 5. The Magne Gage and Ferrite seem pertinent.
versus those from the Magne Gage on a
Meter give readings within 20 percent • The authors' primary conclusion
variety ol samples. The data show that the
Ferrite Meter measured regions ol differ- of each other over the range of 0-10 will b e c o m e v a l i d w h e n t h e i r
ent ferrite content within the weld while the percent ferritic stainless in austenite. powder compacts are calibrated in
Magne Gage gave only a single average The difference is larger when iron in Ferrite Numbers.
value austenite is being detected. • The German instrument they de-

162-s JUNE 1976


scribe will be an excellent tool when 10% ferrite, as established by two Gage and then Instrument X. The
calibrated by the WRC procedure careful and independent pieces of result could be an incorrect calibra-
(AWS A4.2-74). This procedure ful- work (Refs. 9, 13). The first reference tion of Instrument X with powder c o m -
ly describes the use of secondary was based upon magnetic saturation pacts. It would be necessary to prove
standards necessary to calibrate tests on European weld metals used that this is not a problem before
such instruments. in one of their round robins, and the accepting or recommending metal
This discussion will serve a val- second upon Mossbauer-effect powder compacts as standards to
uable p u r p o s e if it steers the examinations by the United States calibrate other instruments.
USERDA and others away from National Bureau of S t a n d a r d s of With regard to the conclusions
powder metal compacts divorced some weld metal specimens used in reached by the authors, the informa-
from the FN concept. the United States round robin. Thus tion available from committee work
while the present calibration stan- and personal experiences leads me to
dards may be labeled as arbitrary, agree with conclusions 1 and 2. With
they are specifically based upon the regard to conclusions 3 through 5,
Discussion by W. T. D e L o n g
best available data on the true ferrite some cautions are in order. The in-
The authors have made a worth- content of weld metals. strument proposed can undoubtedly
while contribution to the very exten- Another key question on instru- be very satisfactory if properly cali-
sive literature in this complex and ment calibration considered by the brated and periodically rechecked
controversial field. It is necessary and WRC committee was where and how against weld metal standards rated in
desirable to relate their work to the to obtain d e p e n d a b l e and guar- terms of Ferrite Number. If not, it may
conclusions reached by the two major anteed primary standards for cali- or may not read correctly. Three or
committees in the United States and bration over a period of years. The four Magnetoscopes produced by the
Europe on this topic over the past 15 Committee decision was that the NBS Institute Dr. Forster, which were
years, even though the discussion coating thickness standards meet tested in Europe in a round robin
must necessarily be brief. these criteria. Standards effectively years ago, gave widely different "per-
The calibration of magnetic instru- derived from this basic starting point, cent ferrite" readings on a given set of
ments for ferrite measurement should such as weld metal standards rated weld metals. The basic use of the in-
be d o n e following AWS A4.2-74 for Ferrite Number, or powder metal strument at that time was for mea-
(Ref. 12). It is an extension of the WRC c o m p a c t s if they s h o u l d b e c o m e suring permeability. I believe that this
system described briefly in this arti- available and are carefully rated in is the same instrument, since adopt-
cle, and provides for NBS coating Ferrite Number and are proved suit- ed to measure ferrite and named the
thickness standards for calibration of able based on a d e q u a t e testing, Ferrite Meter. It is described and dis-
Magne Gages and weld metal stan- would also be satisfactory. cussed in a 1968 IIW D o c u m e n t
dards for calibration of other instru- The authors' proposed powder (Ref. 16). It seems generally suitable
ments. compacts must also be considered for measuring the ferrite content of
The I n t e r n a t i o n a l I n s t i t u t e of arbitrary standards since the mor- weld metal, provided that it is prop-
Welding has accepted this WRC con- phology of the magnetic particles in erly calibrated to do so. The IIW d o c u -
cept and committed itself to estab- the compacts is quite different from ment reported that the volume of
lishing a procedure which will result in that of weld metals. The authors' weld metal sensed by the probe had a
values for Ferrite Number on weld Table I illustrates the very substantial radius of about 10 m m . This would
metals equal to those produced by in- difference in magnetic response of a conflict with the author's conclusion 4.
struments calibrated with the c a l i b r a t e d Magne Gage from the However, it is very possible or even
W R C / A W S procedure. volume percent of magnetic powder probable from a review of the au-
The first problem faced by the WRC in the specimen; i.e., 5% by weight of thors' article versus the IIW Docu-
and IIW committees was that there 430 powder in 316 is read as 2.2 and ment (Ref. 16) that the probe has
were literally dozens of different cali- 2.1 Ferrite Number by the Magne been reduced in size and that it
brations of "percent ferrite." Round Gage. This confirms work by Simp- now responds to a smaller volume of
robins showed that the spread in kinson back in 1949 through 1952 weld metal.
these was roughly plus 60% minus (Refs. 10, 14) and by DeLong et al., in
40% from the mean, a very substan- 1956 (Ref. 15). H. C. CAMPBELL is a member, and W. T.
tial spread! In order to avoid a situa- One question which must be asked DeLONG is Chairman of the Advisory Sub-
tion in which the WRC was pushing is whether powder metal compacts Committee ol the High Alloys Committee
just another "percent ferrite," one will be made, tested, sold, and guar- of the Welding Research Council.
which could easily be confused with anteed to a specific Ferrite Number
dozens of other different scales which based upon the W R C / A W S p r o - Author's Reply
were also percent ferrite, the WRC cedure, over a period of time by a de- I wish to thank the reviewers, Dr. H.
committee decided to replace percent pendable source. C. Campbell and W. T. DeLong for
ferrite with the term Ferrite Number, A second and related question is their comments. I agree that the sub-
this number representing the true whether such standards, which must ject is complex and there is a need to
percent ferrite in weld metal to the be regarded as secondary standards be extremely careful in developing
best of our ability to establish it at the since their assigned FN values would standards and in calibrating instru-
time. be derived f r o m tests on Magne ments. The intent of this paper was to
The Ferrite Number scale estab- Gages calibrated to the AWS pro- present some additional information
lished by the WRC was set so as to be cedure, are as good as secondary which could be of benefit to people
approximately equal to the mean per- weld metal standards similarly rated working in the field. As printed, the
cent ferrite reported for the spec- for FN. As the authors point out, c o m - paper contains some changes made
imens studied in extensive United pacts are not like weld metal, and in- to conform to some of the criticism.
States and European round robin struments do differ in response. Thus,
tests on a series of weld metals. Sub- while weld metal must respond as References
sequent work established that the weld metal on any and all instru- 1. Gunia, R. B. and Ratz, G. A., "The
values selected were in fact reason- ments, a compact will not necessarily Measurement of Delta Ferrite in Austen-
ably representative of the best true show the same shift in response as a itic Stainless Steels," Welding Research
percent ferrite, at least up to about weld metal when tested on a Magne Council Bulletin No. 132, Aug. 1968.

WELDING RESEARCH S U P P L E M E N T ! 163-s


2. DeLong, W. T., "Ferrite in Austenitic of Ferrite C o n t e n t in Stainless Steel Delta Ferrite Content of Austenitic Stain-
Stainless Steel Weld Metal," Welding Jour- Welds," USAEC RFP-2125, Rocky Flats less Steel Weld Metal, AWS A4.2-74, p u b -
nal, Vol. 53 (7), July 1974, Res. Suppl., pp Division, Dow Chemical USA, 1973. lished by the American Welding Society,
273-s to 286-s. 8. Hicho, G. E., Yakowitz, H., Rasberry, 2501 N.W. 7th St., Miami, Florida 33125.
3. DeLong, W. T., "Calibration Pro- S. D. and Michaelis, R. E., "A Standard 13. Bungardt, K., Dietrich, H. and Arntz,
cedure for Instruments to Measure the Reference Material Containing Nominally H-E, "The Magnetic Determination of Fer-
Delta Ferrite Content of Austenitic Stain- Four Percent Austenite," National Bureau rite in Austenitic Materials, and Especially
less Steel Weld Metal," Welding Journal, of Standards, Special Publication 260-25, in Austenitic Welded Material," DEW-
Vol. 52 (2), Feb. 1973, Res. Suppl., pp 69-s U.S. Government Printing Office, 1971. Technische Berichte 10, 1970, No. 4, pp.
to 72-s. 9. Schwartzendruber, L. J.. et al., 298-325.
4. Schaeffler, A., "Constitution Dia- "Mossbauer-Effect Examination of Ferrite 14. Simpkinson, T. V., "Ferrite in Aus-
gram for Stainless Steel Weld Metal," in Stainless Steel Welds and Castings," tenitic Steels Estimated Accurately," Iron
Metal Progress, Vol. 56, 1949, 680 and Welding Journal, Vol. 53 (1), Jan. 1974, Age, 170, Dec. 11, 1952, pp. 166-169.
680B. Research Suppl., pp. 1-s to 12-s. 15. DeLong, W. T „ Ostrom, G. A. and
5. Long, C. J. and DeLong, W. T., "The 10. S i m p k i n s o n , T. V. and Lavigne, M. Szumachowski, E. R., "Measurement and
Ferrite Content of Austenitic Stainless J., "Detention of Ferrite by its Magne- Calculation of Ferrite in Stainless Steel
Steel Weld Metal," Welding Journal, Vol. t i s m , " Metal Progress, Vol. 55 (2), Feb. Weld Metal," Welding Journal, Vol. 35 (11),
52 (7), July 1973, Res. Suppl., pp 281-s to 1949. Nov. 1956, Research Suppl., pp. 521-s to
297-s. 11. Fleischmann, W. L., "Determination 528-s.
6. Hull, F. C , "Delta Ferrite and Marten- of Ferrite in Type 347 Stainless Steel Weld 16. International Institute of Welding,
site Formation in Stainless Steels," Weld- Deposit." Welding Journal, Vol. 33 (9), IIW Document ll-C-262-68, "Appendix II,
ing Journal, Vol. 52 (5), May 1973, Res. Sept. 1954, Research Suppl., pp. 459-s to Description of the Apparatuses Used, of
Suppl., pp 193-s to 203-s. 468-s. their Calibration, and of the Methods
7. Lassahn, G. D. and Moment, R. L., 12. Standard Procedures for Calibrat- Adopted for Measurement on International
"Feasibility of Eddy Current Measurement ing Magnetic Instruments to Measure Specimens."

AWS D10.10-75
Local Heat Treatment of Welds in Piping
and Tubing
In the manufacture of welded articles or structures in the shop or in
the field, it may be desirable, for a variety of reasons, to heat the weld
regions before welding (preheating), between passes (interpass heating),
or after welding (postheating). This document presents in detail the
various means commercially available for heating pipe welds locally,
either before or after welding, or between passes. The relative advantages
and disadvantages of each method are also discussed. Although the
document is oriented principally toward the heating of welds in piping
and tubing, the discussion of the various heating methods is applicable
to any type of welded fabrication.
Topics covered include the following:
• Measurement of Temperature
• Induction Heating
• Electric Resistance Heating
• Flame Heating
• Exothermic Heating
• Gas-Flame Generated Infrared Heating
• Radiant Heating by Quartz Lamps.
The price of AWS D10.10-75, Local Heat Treatment of Welds in
Piping and Tubing, is $3.50. Discounts: 25% to A and B members; 20% to
bookstores, public libraries and schools; 15% to C and D members. Send
your orders to the American Welding Society, 2501 N.W. 7th Street,
Miami, FL 33125. Florida residents add 4% sales tax.

164-S I J U N E 1976