Materials Science & Engineering A 666 (2016) 100–113

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Materials Science & Engineering A

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/msea

Effect of buffer-layered buttering on microstructure and mechanical

properties of dissimilar metal weld joints for nuclear plant application
Dinesh W. Rathod a,n,1, P.K. Singh b, Sunil Pandey a, S. Aravindan a
a
Department of Mechanical Enggineering, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, Hauz-khas, New Delhi 110016, India
b
Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Mumbai 400085, India

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In this study, we present the metallurgical and mechanical investigation of four dissimilar welds between
Received 5 April 2016 SA508Gr.3Cl.1 and SS304LN. The welding processes for buttering deposition and fill-pass welding were
Received in revised form varied with ERNiCr-3/ENiCrFe-3 consumables. The Ni-Fe alloy buffer layer was introduced as inter-
18 April 2016
mediate layer in buttering and then the joints (with and without buffer layer in buttering) were fabri-
Accepted 19 April 2016
cated. The effect of Ni-Fe buffer layered buttering and welding processes on the resulting weld joints
Available online 20 April 2016
properties has been addressed. Metallurgical and mechanical properties, fracture toughness were
Keywords: measured and various examinations were carried out for integrity assessment on all the weld joints.
Buffer layer Addition of a Ni-Fe buttering layer leads to the development of more favourable properties than observed
Dissimilar welds
in welded joints made using the current practice without a buffer layer. Control of carbon migration and
Structural integrity
its subsequent effect on metallurgical, mechanical properties due to buffer layer has been justified in the
ERNiCr-3/ENiCrFe-3
Ni-Fe alloy study. Conventional procedure of DMW fabrication has been proven to be the least favourable against the
SA508Gr.3Cl.1 new technique suggested. Modification in current integrity assessment procedure would be possible by
considering the properties at interfacial regions, introduction of yield strength ratio mismatch and the
plastic instability strength in the integrity assessment.
& 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction DMW joints is greatly affected by other often-associated problems

In nuclear power plants, the light water reactor pressure vessel
is made of ferritic steel, typically SA508Gr.3Cl.1, which must be
joined to stainless steel pipelines, usually made of SA312 Type
304LN, using arc welding processes. Such dissimilar metal welds
(DMW) are typically made with Ni-base consumables as the filler
metal in an attempt to mitigate the strong variation in physical,
chemical and mechanical properties across the weld [1,2]. It is also
common practice deposit a Ni-base (ERNiCr-3) buttering layer
onto the ferritic steel before making the joining weld to reduce
carbon migration [1–4]. The Ni-base consumables (ERNiCr-3/EN-
iCrFe-3) are extensively used for DMW joint fabrication because of
certain advantages of carbon migration. Despite the necessity of
DMW, and the improvement in properties conferred by the use of
Ni-base consumables, the desired design life has not been
achieved [3–5] and many failures [3,6–9] have occurred. The types
of failures and locations [3,6–9] in DMW joints are still remain the
big challenge to assess the causes of failures. The performance of
n
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: dineshvrathod@gmail.com (D.W. Rathod).
1
Present address: MTRL, School of MACE, University of Manchester, United
Kingdom, M13 9PL.
[1–4,10] like degradation of ferritic steel due to oxide notch (low
oxidation resistance), metallurgical deterioration at the interfaces,
and residual stresses during buttering and welding. During any
welding procedure, thermal stresses develop which can be detri-
mental for structural integrity and performance [11]. In case of
DMWs the mismatch in coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) of
austenitic and ferritic steel can cause different stress profile across
the weld joint [1,12–18]. The chemical and microstructural varia-
tions across the joint can also be severe; the formation of a carbon
depleted soft zone and carbon enriched hard zone which forms
due to carbon migration [1,2,7,9,12,13,15,17,19–22] has been im-
plicated in failure. Controlling the carbon migration is therefore
crucial to minimising the likelihood of failure of the weld. DMW
joints have varying metallurgical, mechanical and fracture tough-
ness properties across the weld joint, which also affect the in-
tegrity of joints.
Although it has been shown in earlier study of Rathod et al. [7]
that carbon migration can be controlled through the use of Ni-Fe
alloy buffer layer in buttering made with Gas Metal Arc Welding
(GMAW) process and ERNiCr-3. The implications of a Ni-Fe alloy
buffer layer in buttering using GMAW process on the mechanical
properties of the joint have yet to be documented. Variations in
welding processes also have the potential to influence

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.msea.2016.04.053
0921-5093/& 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
 D.W. Rathod et al. / Materials Science & Engineering A 666 (2016) 100–113
metallurgical and mechanical properties across the joint. Standard
practice is to deposit buttering layer of Inconel 82 (ERNiCr-3) using
Gas Tungsten Arc Welding (GTAW) process and a completion weld
(fill-pass welding) with filler metal Inconel 182 (ENiCrFe-3) using
Shielded Metal Arc Welding (SMAW). This study compares the
microstructural and mechanical properties of joints produced
using standard practice and those made with an intermediate Ni-
Fe alloy buffer layer in the buttering deposited with GMAW [7,23]
technique. GMAW process is not commonly used for preparing
DMWs due to mixing of O2 or CO2 in argon gas shielding to
maintain the arc stability. In present study, we demonstrate the
use of GMAW with pure argon shielding for buttering and com-
pletion of welds. A comprehensive assessment of the integrity of
the welds was carried out by means of 100% radiographic in-
spection of weld joints, all-weld tensile test of weldment zones,
composite tensile test, Charpy V-notch test of weldment zones,
fracture toughness of weld, angular distortion, chemical analysis,
microstructure evolution and the micro-hardness measurement
across the weld joints.
2. Materials and experiments
2.1. Materials and welding
The quenched and tempered SA508Gr.3Cl.1 and austenitic
SS304LN steel supplied in solution annealed condition of pipe
form were machined into plate form (150
50
18 mm) samples
with single ‘V’ groove geometry with compound bevel joint de-
sign. Four DMW joints were fabricated with two different butter-
ing procedures and two different completion weld procedures. For
two samples, four layers of buttering, with total of sixteen passes
of 2 mm diameter ERNiCr-3 TIG rod were deposited using GTAW
process onto the machined surface of two SA508Gr.3Cl.1 plates.
For remaining two samples, an initial intermediate buffer layer of
Ni-Fe alloy (ERNiFe-CI) was deposited with GTAW process, the
subsequent three buttering layers were deposited by GMAW
process using 1.1 mm ERNiCr-3 MIG wires as described in earlier
study [7] to give a total of thirteen passes for the four layers. The
thermal expansion and the tensile properties of consumables and
base metals are same as the properties reported in earlier study
[8]. Chemical composition of base metals (BM) and filler metals
(FM) used in study is given in Table 1.
The schematics of buttering layers employed on ferritic steel
plates after re-machining for groove geometry are shown in Fig. 1
(A) and (B) for the groove geometry of buttering deposits without
and with buffer layer respectively. GTAW buttering employed by
3 mm diameter tungsten electrode with straight polarity using
ERNiCr-3 and ERNiFe-CI filler metals. Pure argon gas at 7 L/min
was provided during GTAW while, 14 L/min was employed during
GMAW process. The contact tube to work distance (CTWD) was
Table 1
Chemical composition of base metals (BM) and filler metals (FM).
Materials and Consumables Weight Percentage (wt%)
C Ni Cr Fe Mn Nb
SA508Gr.3Cl.1(BM) 0.197 0.53 0.12 96.95 1.30 – –
SS304LN(BM) 0.025 8.22 18.09 70.83 0.83 0.01 –
ERNiFe-CI (FM) (TIG - 0.025 53.01 0.15 43.24 0.74 0.003 –
2.4 mm)
ERNiCr-3(FM) (TIG - 2 mm) 0.017 72.71 19.86 1.40 2.94 2.75
ERNiCr-3(FM) (MIG - 0.016 72.47 20.01 1.28 2.74 2.88
1.1 mm)
ENiCrFe- 3 (FM) (4 mm) 0.042 67.17 14.09 6.83 7.51 1.99
101
maintained  15–18 mm while the wire feed rate adopted was
4.57 m/min for GMAW process. The interpass temperature during
buttering and welding was maintained between 150 and 180 °C.
The process parameters employed for the buttering are given in
Table 2.
To attain lesser angular distortion, the compound bevel angle
provided in the joint geometry followed by preliminary in-
vestigation. The compound bevel geometry as shown in Fig. 2
(A) and (B) has been employed for the joints fabricated with
SMAW and GMAW processes respectively.
The buttering deposits were examined for defects using Dye
Penetrant test as per the criteria of ASME Sec-V, Article 6. After
finding them to be defect free, the completion welds were carried
out. GTAW was used to produce two root passes using ERNiCr-3
TIG rods and back purging. The subsequent completion welds
were made with either SMAW or GMAW. The process parameters
during completion weld are given Table 3. The weld joints were
classified as A-1, A-2, B-1 and B-2 according to the buttering and
welding processes used and can be seen in Table 3.
All welding activities (GTAW and SMAW, GMAW) were carried
out in manual mode as per requirement of ASME Sec-IX. Uniform
dilution was attained by adopting the weaving bead deposition
and the run-in and run-out defects were to minimised by using
dummy blocks. The four as-welded joints after removal of dummy
blocks are shown in Fig. 3.
All four weld joints were subjected to 100% radiographic in-
spection as per the requirement of ASME Sec-V, Article 2 and the
joints were qualified according to the acceptance criteria of ASME
Sec-III.
2.2. Testing methods and procedure
2.2.1. Specimen fabrication
The typical length of each weld joint was 150 mm out of which
specimens were extracted for mechanical and metallurgical test.
All specimens were extracted and machined using wire cut electric
discharge machine (EDM). The location of specimens on the weld
joints is shown in Fig. 4. Three specimens for composite tensile
test (CTT), five sub-size specimens for Charpy V-notch test from
each region of weldment, one specimen for fracture toughness of
weld metal by single edge bend specimen (SEBN), two specimens
for metallurgical investigation and remaining length was used to
extract the four specimens from each weldment region for all-
weld tensile test.
The extracted specimens and their respective positions on weld
joints are shown in Fig. 5 for all-weld tensile test. The position of
extraction of Charpy V-notch test specimens for each weldment
region shown in Fig. 6. The specimen from HAZ ferritic steel,
buttering, and weld metal regions are shown in Fig. 6A, B and C
respectively.
The extraction position of composite tensile test specimens and
fracture toughness (SENB) specimens are shown in Fig. 7(A) and
(B) respectively.
2.2.2. Mechanical testing
ASTM E8M standard was used for machining and testing the
sub-size tensile (standard sheet type) specimens at the ambient
Ti temperature (24 °C) for composite tensile test and the all-weld
tensile test. The INSTRON 5582 machine was used with 2.5 mm/
min strain rate for all tensile specimens under this test. The
standard sub-size specimens for Charpy V-notch impact test were
machined according to the dimensions specified in ASTM E23
0.41 standard by considering the notch position in desired weldment
0.36 region. The V-notch dimensions were confirmed with shadow-
0.45
graph profiler. The testing was conducted on conventional cali-
brated machine at the ambient temperature (24 °C). The specimen
102 D.W. Rathod et al. / Materials Science & Engineering A 666 (2016) 100–113

Fig. 1. Schematics of buttering deposits for (A) without buffer layer using GTAW process, and (B) with Ni-Fe buffer layer using GMAW process.

Table 2
Process parameters for buttering deposition on ferritic steel plates of weld joints.

Plates Layer Process Consumables Current (amps) Volts (V) Welding speed mm/sec Heat input KJ/mm

Without buffer layer buttering Layer 1–4 GTAW ERNiCr3-ɸ2 mm-TIG rod 91–95 8.5–9.5 0.49 1.58

With buffer layer buttering Buffer layer 1 GTAW ERNiFe-CI- ɸ2.4 mm TIG rod 96–100 8.5–9.5 0.49 1.67
Layer 2–4 GMAW ERNiCr3-ɸ1.1 mm-MIG wire 123–126 23 2.72 1.06

Fig. 2. Schematics of compound bevel joint design for joints (A) with SMAW process, and (B) GMAW process.

Table 3
Process parameters during Weld Joints Fabrication/weld completion.

Weld Joint Buttering Pass Process Consumables Current (amps) Volts (V) Welding speed mm/sec Heat input KJ/mm

A-1 Without buffer layer Root GTAW ERNiCr-3 (ɸ2 mm) 110–114 8.5–10 0.86 1.11
Fill SMAW ENiCrFe-3 (ɸ4 mm) 100–106 25–28 0.82 3.33
A-2 Root GTAW ERNiCr-3 (ɸ2 mm) 110–114 8.5–10 0.86 1.11
Fill GMAW ERNiCr-3 (ɸ1.1 mm) 106–118 24–26 1.04 2.69

B-1 With Ni-Fe buffer layer Root GTAW ERNiCr-3 (ɸ2 mm) 110–114 8.5–10 0.86 1.11
Fill SMAW ENiCrFe-3 (ɸ4 mm) 100–106 25–28 0.86 3.17
B-2 Root GTAW ERNiCr-3 (ɸ2 mm) 110–114 8.5–10 0.86 1.11
Fill GMAW ERNiCr-3 (ɸ1.1 mm) 106–118 24–26 1.14 2.46

fabrication and the analysis for fracture toughness (CTOD-Crack
Tip Opening Displacement) specimens of weld metal have been
made as per the procedures given in ASTM E1290-02 and E1820-
09 standard. The notch and crack tip in standard single edge three
point bend specimen (SEBN) specimens were positioned in the
centre of weld metal and in the direction of welding (Fig. 7(B)).
The pre-cracking and the testing of SEBN specimens have been
conducted on MTS 810 machine at ambient temperature (24 °C)
adopting the standard procedure given in standard. The specimens
for metallurgical test were used for angular measurement with
digital image processing and the results were confirmed by
coordinate measuring machine (CMM).
2.2.3. Metallurgical testing
The microstructure of ferritic steel was revealed with 2%Nital
for 3–4 s after the reaction started. Stainless steel was etched
electrolytically with 10% oxalic acid at 6 V, ERNiCr-3/ENiCrFe-3
were observed with 10% ammonium persulphate electrolyte etch
at 6 V. The chemical analysis using optical emission spectrometer
(OES) has been conducted for weldment regions of weld joints.
The chemical compositions of Ni-base weld regions and stainless
steel were obtained using the ARC-MET 8000 (Oxford Instrument)
 D.W. Rathod et al. / Materials Science & Engineering A 666 (2016) 100–113
Fig. 3. As welded weld joints after removal of dummy blocks.
Fig. 4. Location of specimens extracted for the mechanical and metallurgical
investigation.
Fig. 5. Position of specimens extracted from each weldment region (HAZ ferritic
steel, Buttering and Weld metal) for all-weld tensile specimens.
Spectrometer and the SpectroMaxx spectrometer was used for the
ferritic steel. The average values from three locations on the spe-
cimens have been used in the analysis. Similarly, the ASTM E415-
103
99a and ASTM E2594-09 standards were used for measurement of
ferritic steel and Ni-base alloy respectively and the ASTM E1507-
07 protocol was followed during measurement. The hardness
variations across the weldment zones have been measured using
Leica VMHT Auto instrument with 10gf and 100gf test loads. Lower
load (10gf) used at the interfaces of weld joints for more precise
results and the 100gf load was used in the weldment regions.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Angular distortion
Angular distortion in weld joints are shown in Fig. 8. The an-
gular distortion [24,25] is indicative of presence of residual stres-
ses. Residual stresses were not quantified but with angular dis-
tortion, it can be qualitatively compared for the all four weld
joints. The completion weld made with GMAW (A-2, B-2) has
shown same angular distortion as an effect of same heat input and
associated solidification rate.
Higher angular distortion observed with the joint fabricated
with current practice (A-1) and the lower with buffer layered
GMAW deposited joint completed with SMAW. The effect of buffer
layer and buttering process observed to be significant with com-
pletion weld by SMAW than the GMAW. Variations in terms of
heat input, dilution and cooling rate (welding conditions) are more
significant in joint B-1 and that might be sufficient for tempering
of HAZ ferritic steel and buttering deposit by multi-pass SMAW
process (high dilution and heat input). Faster cooling rate attained
with GMAW processes was missed in joint A-1. Angular distortion
could become the function of formed phases and their subsequent
tempering while rest of the welding parameters are remaining
same. These variations may cause to change the weld chemistry,
which is diluted with buttering. The minor variations in micro-
alloying may affect solidification behaviour and resulting angular
distortion. The GTAW and GMAW have the marginal difference in
heat input than the SMAW process and therefore, angular distor-
tion in joint A-2 and B-2 is same. Hence, favourable angular dis-
tortion (in terms of lesser residual stresses) can be achieved by
new procedure of buttering and welding compared to the existing
104 D.W. Rathod et al. / Materials Science & Engineering A 666 (2016) 100–113
Fig. 6. Position of extracted specimens for Charpy V-notch test (A) HAZ ferritic steel, (B) Buttering and (C) Weld metal region.
one (joint A-1).
3.2. Materials chemistry in weld regions
The chemical composition (OES) measured in different weld
regions of the weld joints are given in Table 4. It can be seen that
despite dilution in the buttering deposits and weld metal due to
thermal input of the welding processes, the weld chemistry of
buttering and weld metal meets the ASME Section-II specified
chemical composition for DMW joints with marginal variations
owing to dilution (increased Fe in buttering). The samples, which
included a Ni-Fe alloy buffer layer, showed a much lower amount
of carbon in buttering region, although levels of carbon in the weld
metal (fill-pass) were similar, than samples without buffer layer.
Carbon diffusion could be severe for buttering region than weld
metals because the carbon needs to travel (diffusion) through
buttering region to reach the weld metal, which is extremely long
atomic distance for carbon to migrate in as-welded condition.
Buffer layered samples also showed a higher percentage of iron
(Fe) in buttering region which would affect the solidification and
partitioning behaviour of the resulting phases in buttering region
[26,27]. Niobium fraction is reduced in buttering and is significant
in buttering without buffer layer than buffer layer and might
caused due to increased solubility of Fe in solution. In weld metal,
no considerable variation in Nb has observed. The increased Fe
content in nickel (Ni) matrix could reduce the CTE [28] and that
would help in bridging the mismatch in CTEs of stainless and
ferritic steels [8]. This graded composition owing to buffer layer
could provide a gradient in thermal properties between two dis-
similar metals whose CTE are significantly different and such
graded composition is not possible with ERNiCr-3 buttering alone.
This variation could also affect the residual stresses due to sharp
differences in thermal properties of the dissimilar metals involved
in joints [29] and further quantification on residual stresses could
also be possible and this is at present is the limitation study.
Fig. 7. Position of extracted specimens for (A) Composite tensile test, and (B) Fracture toughness.
3.3. Weldment microstructure
The SA508Gr.3Cl.1 ferritic steel has been in bainitic structure in
as received condition of quenched and tempered pipe forging.
Similarly, the SS304LN pipes in solution-annealed condition have
the equiaxed grain structure of austenite twins. The cross-section
view of the weldment regions of weld joints with the extent of
HAZs, buttering region and weld metal are shown with macro-
graph in Fig. 9. The as-received microstructure of SA508Gr.3Cl.1
and SS304LN is shown in Fig. 10(A) and (B). The fusion interface
between buttering and ferritic steel of the joints A-1 and B-1
fabricated with buttering using without and with buffer layer of
Ni-Fe alloy has been shown in Fig. 11(A) and (B) respectively. The
HAZ of ferritic steel microstructure of joint A-2 is similar to A-1
while that of B-2 is similar to B-1 due to identical buttering de-
position in these joints.
The carbon denuded soft zone (the white phase field) owing to
migration of carbon [2] is observed in joint A-1 and A-2 and
shown in Fig. 11(A). The soft zone observed to be in width of
 50 mm. The thin martensite at interface and the extent of dec-
arburised region near the interface are shown by arrows, which
are formed due to sharp composition gradient [7,30] and diffusion.
The microstructure is pearlite like bainite structure having the
significantly fine grain size than parent metal (Fig. 10(A)) owing to
tempering caused by multi-passes.
The carbon-enriched zone (dark phase field) has been formed
due to presence of Ni-Fe buffer layer in the buttering of joint B-1
and B-2. The arrow in Fig. 11(B) of joint B-1 is showing the carbon-
enriched hard zone in the HAZ of ferritic steel. The pearlite-like
structure with some fraction of reformed martensite can be seen
in the Fig. 11(B). The grain structure is also fine compared to parent
metal owing to multi-pass tempering effect and the width of
carbon-enriched zone is  60 mm. The formation of a carbon-de-
nuded zone has been attributed to the affinity of carbon for
chromium, which is present in higher proportion in the ERNiCr-3/
ENiCrFe-3. Carbon migrates from ferritic steel towards the Ni-Fe
alloy but builds up at the interface due to reduced diffusion rate of
 D.W. Rathod et al. / Materials Science & Engineering A 666 (2016) 100–113 105

Fig. 8. Angular distortion measured on weld joints.

Table 4
Chemical composition in the weld regions of all weld joints.

Weld Joint Zone Weight Percentage (wt%)

C Ni Cr Fe Mn Mo Nb Ti Si

A-1 Buttering 0.050 68.11 19.07 7.72 2.47 0.05 1.67 0.36 0.22
Weld metal 0.051 65.46 15.81 7.63 6.49 0.06 1.99 0.62 0.98

A-2 Buttering 0.041 68.24 19.02 7.59 2.63 0.06 1.60 0.36 0.19
Weld metal 0.048 65.47 20.52 7.02 3.38 0.16 2.37 0.27 0.30

B-1 Buttering 0.022 62.14 18.49 13.41 2.79 0.38 1.99 0.32 0.23
Weld metal 0.049 64.86 15.94 7.75 6.61 0.06 2.01 0.56 1.19

B-2 Buttering 0.021 62.41 18.22 13.56 2.99 0.13 2.09 0.33 0.21
Weld metal 0.052 65.88 19.67 7.10 3.16 0.18 2.80 0.39 0.25

carbon on Ni-Fe alloy [7]. In contrast to ERNiCr-3, which has
chromium content of 18–21%, the Ni-Fe buffer layer contains no
chromium, thus carbon does not migrate from the ferritic steel to
the Ni-Fe alloy (buffer layered buttering) [7].
Hence, the Ni-Fe alloy buffer layer acts as graded composition
[7,21,23,31,32] in the sandwich pattern of DMW joints with but-
tering. Ni-Fe buffer layer significantly controls the carbon migra-
tion and respective formation of carbon depleted / carbon-en-
riched zones in HAZ near the interface [7].
Variations in buffer layer and buttering could not affect the HAZ
of SS304LN as the SS304LN comes in focus during completion
weld. The considerable variations in HAZ of SS304LN have been
observed owing to heat inputs of welding processes. The joint A-1
and B-1 fabricated with SMAW process while joint A-2 and B-2
with GMAW process. Hence, the HAZ of SS304LN of joint B-1 and
B-2 of SMAW and GMAW processes are shown in Fig. 12(A) and
(B) respectively. A clear transition region, known as partially
mixed zone (PMZ), is visible in both HAZ as shown with arrows.
The SMAW welded joint has smaller equiaxed austenite grains
than those in the same location with respect to the fusion line in
the GMAW weld. This is due to the higher heat input of SMAW
process. The austenite grains in Fig. 12(A) are smaller while, those
in Fig. 12(B) are bigger than the respective base metal (Fig. 10(B)).
The interior of buttering region microstructure of joint A-1 and
B-1 (without and with buffer layer) is shown in Fig. 13(A) and
(B) respectively. The buttering and weld metal microstructure of
ERNiCr-3 and ENiCrFe-3 is fully austenitic and indicating lack of
allotropic transformation during solidification [7,26,33]. The as-
solidified columnar microstructure of joint A-1 shows much or-
ientational variation than that of B-1 and the different colour in-
dicates the different crystallographic orientations of austenite
phase. In joint A-1, the buttering alloy (ERNiCr-3) is only diluted
with ferritic steel close to the fusion line, in B-1 however, the
buttering alloy (ERNiCr-3) is diluted with Ni-Fe buffer layer.
Whereas, the Ni-Fe buffer layer itself diluted with ferritic steel at
the interface. Therefore, the buttering deposit with buffer layer
would contain higher amount of Fe compared to the buttering
deposit without buffer layer. The increased amount of Fe in but-
tering deposit leads to decrease in the Nb and Ti solubility in
austenite phase and their ability to remain in solution is getting
limited [26].
The considerable content of Nb and Ti (3–4%) increases the bulk
solidification temperature range [27,34] due to presence of more
amount of Fe in buttering deposit. This increases the degree of
constitutional undercooling and causing the dendrite structure to
widen [35]. Hence, the primary arm spacing and dendrite width in
Fig. 13(B) of joint B-1, with buffer layer, has been wider than the
Fig. 13(A) of joint A-1, without buffer layer. Owing to more amount
of Fe in buttering deposit with buffer layer than without buffer
layer, the solubility of Nb in solution is decreases. Therefore, the

Fig. 9. Macrograph of weld joints showing the weldment regions and base metals.
106 D.W. Rathod et al. / Materials Science & Engineering A 666 (2016) 100–113
Fig. 10. As-received microstructure of base metals (A) SA508Gr.3Cl.1, and (B) SS304LN.
partitioning of Nb and Ti to the interdendritic region is increased
and it would result in formation of laves (Fe2Nb) phases [7,23].
Hence, the significantly more fraction of laves phases (dark
spheroidal indicated with arrows) can be seen in Fig. 13(B) of
buttering with Ni-Fe buffer layer than without buffer layer (Fig. 13
(A)).
The weld metal microstructure of joint A-1 and B-2 with SMAW
and GMAW process is shown in Fig. 14(A) and (B) respectively. The
similar microstructure is developed in each case due to use of the
same filler metals. The use of coated electrodes in SMAW process
(joint A-1) leads to very fine slag inclusions [8] as encircled can be
seen clearly in micrograph of Fig. 14(A). Such slag inclusion is not
present in Fig. 14(B) due to flux-free GMAW process. The chem-
istry of weld metal for Nb and Fe is almost similar with marginal
variation in each weld joint. Hence, due to fine slag inclusion [8],
different cooling rate and heat input during welding, some mar-
ginal variations have been observed in joint A-1 and B-2. Fine
secondary phase particles at grain boundary have been shown
with arrows in Fig. 14(A). The migrated grain boundary (MGB) and
solidification grain boundaries (SGB) are clearly visible and arrows
indicate them. The slightly courser grains were observed with
GMAW process, and the SGBs and MGBs are more prominent. The
arrows in Fig. 14(B) indicate the shiny NbC phase particles. Laves
phases are not observed in weld metal of GMAW process perhaps
due to the faster solidification rate in GMAW process.
3.4. Micro-hardness evaluation
Micro-hardness variations across the weldment regions of all
four weld joints are shown in Fig. 15. Hardness in HAZ of ferritic
steel has been increased due to reformed martensite fraction [36].
Martensite formation at the ferritic steel and buttering interface
due to weld chemistry variation [7,30] has been evidenced. The
less heat input during GMAW than GTAW process has not caused
the tempering of martensite as an effect of multi-pass buttering
Fig. 11. Microstructure of HAZ of ferritic steel for (A) joint A-1, and (B) Joint B-1.
deposition. This caused to have the more hardness in HAZ of ferric
steel for joints buttered with GMAW process. The effect of carbon
enriched / denuded zone within  50 mm distance in HAZ ferritic
steel from interface is considerable.
The composition gradient in buttering layers and weld metals
(ERNiCr-3/ENiCrFe-3) could remain almost constant due to filler
metal chemistry [1] hence the hardness in weld metal is not ex-
pected to vary significantly. Minor variations could be possible in
weld region because of different heat inputs. Considerable varia-
tions in buttering near the interface are observed due to significant
chemistry variation and dilution. The hardness variations across
the weldment regions of weld joints in present study are in
agreement with the earlier research [7–9,12,13,17,36,37].
3.5. Composite tensile test
The engineering stress strain curves for the specimens of all
four joints are shown in Fig. 16. All specimens were fractured from
the weaker portion of the base metal SS304LN except one speci-
men from joint B-1. This specimen has been fractured from but-
tering region.
The yield strength (YS) and ultimate tensile strength (UTS) of
specimens from joint with Ni-Fe buffer layer observed to be more
than without buffer layer joints. The obtained results from the
composite tensile test suggest the required strength and ductility
for the DMW joint requirement along with structural integrity.
3.6. All weld tensile properties of weldment regions
The tensile properties YS, UTS, uniform elongation (UE) and
total elongation (TE) along with associated properties, as yield
strength ratio (YSR) and plastic instability strength (PIS) were
determined.
The typical stress strain curves for the specimens of joint A-1
and B-1 are given in Fig. 17(A), while those of joint A-2 and B-2 are
 D.W. Rathod et al. / Materials Science & Engineering A 666 (2016) 100–113
Fig. 12. Microstructure of HAZ of SS304LN for (A) joint B-1 with SMAW, and (B) Joint B-2 with GMAW.
shown in Fig. 17(B). These curves are the example of the mea-
surement made for all samples and their results were used for
presenting the tensile properties in this study. The average YS
observed in the weldment regions and base metals of the all weld
joints is shown in Fig. 18.
The YS in HAZ of ferritic steel region is more than parent metal
except joint A-1 (conventional) due to carbon depleted zone and
effective tempering of the reformed martensite. However, the joint
A-2 has marginally more YS than parent metal due to completion
weld by GMAW which was SMAW in joint A-1. The YS of buffer-
layered joints (B-1/B-2) is considerably more than parent metal
and the joint A-1/A-2. The formation of carbon-enriched zone and
insufficient tempering of martensite due to GMAW buttering have
caused to increase the YS and the results are in agreement with
the hardness profiles. Yield Strength in buttering region of all
joints is almost same.
The weld chemistry variations are considerably significant
(Section 3.2) for the buttering deposits due to dilution and buffer
layer. This caused to have marginal compromise in chemical var-
iations suggested in ASME Sec-II, particularly for Fe content (more
than specified). These variations have not made any adverse effect
on the YS of buttering regions. The YS in weld metal of GMAW
welded joints is more than SMAW joints due to presence of fine
slag inclusions that affects the dislocation mechanism. The UTS of
all weld joints is shown in Fig. 19. The UTS is more than parent
metal (SA508) in HAZ region and is not seen with joint A-1 as seen
with YS. This caused due to the same reasons explained for YS,
which seems to be almost consistent with rest of the joints with
more strength. The UTS in buttering and weld metal region is
observed with same trend as YS. The lowest UTS observed with
joint A-1 (conventional) while the rest of joint showing con-
siderably more strength. The average UTS in joint A-1 is more than
parent metal SS304LN but, the scattering in weld metal of this
joint cannot be truly considered safe for integrity assessment.
The uniform and total elongation in the weld joints can be seen
Fig. 13. Interior of buttering microstructure for (A) joint A-1 without buffer layer, and (B) Joint B-1 with buffer layer.
107
in Figs. 20 and 21 respectively. The elongation is almost consistent
with all joints for the HAZ ferritic steel region, which is marginally
less than the parent metal. The elongation (UE/TE) observed to be
more with GMAW process with buffer layer for buttering and weld
metal. The UE and TE are not favourable and desirable against the
all weld joint in conventional procedure (joint A-1).
The variation in UE/TE is in accordance with the variations
observed in YS and UTS for the same associated reasons. The
tensile properties like UTS and UE influence the deformation and
type of fracture in the material. As in case of DMW joints, these
properties significantly varied across the weldment regions. PIS
values in each material zone have been calculated using the Eq.
(1).
PIS = UTS x (%UE/100 + 1) (1)
PIS is the true stress that reflects the influence of UTS and UE
and the estimated PIS values for all weld joints are given in Fig. 22.
This strength is almost independent of stress concentration but
strongly depends on temperature [8,9,38]. It represents the re-
sistance to local necking initiation and used as local failure criteria
for ductile materials [8,9,38]. Hence, the calculated values of PIS
for all joints in ductile (austenitic) region of buttering and weld
metal have been examined.
PIS in HAZ ferritic steel of joint A-1 is considerably less than the
rest of joint and is not desirable. The favourable PIS profiles are
noticed with the joints welded with the GMAW process due to the
better UE and UTS owing to process compared to SMAW. The effect
due to buffer layer and subsequent carbon migration can be notice
with PIS variation in HAZ ferritic steel. Based on PIS, the values
with buffer layer and buttering deposition as well as welding with
GMAW process is found to be the favourable against conventional
DMW joint manufacturing procedure for the ductile failure cri-
teria. Buffer layer and heat input variation (GMAW/SMAW) causes
the favourable and desirable effects especially in buttering and
weld metal regions. This makes the YS, UTS, UTS, UE, TE, and PIS
108 D.W. Rathod et al. / Materials Science & Engineering A 666 (2016) 100–113

Fig. 14. Interior of weld metal microstructure for (A) joint A-1 – SMAW, and (B) Joint B-2 – GMAW process.

better than without buffer layer joints. On the extent of identified

properties, the excellent and desirable properties are found in this
sequence for joints B-2, A-2, B-1 and A-1. This suggests that buffer
layer introduction is adorable against the conventional procedure
(DMW fabrication) while the GMAW process suggest the better
strength than SMAW process for the welds. Hence, using ductile
failure criteria, it can be suggested that the conventional proce-
dure joint (A-1) is more susceptible for failure compared to other
joints in the severe plastic deformation regime.
The strength mismatch between the weldment regions and
base metals could significantly affect the crack driving force, crack
growth resistance and the strain concentration location under
fully plastic condition [38]. The yield strength ratio (YSR) has been
used [8,9,38] as a measure of weld strength mismatch. Both base
metals and consumables have the different tensile properties,
which can lead to vary strain concentration location in weldment Fig. 16. Engineering stress strain curves for all weld joints.
regions accordingly [8,9,23]. The Eq. (2) has been used to calculate
the YSR for all joints for the ferritic and stainless steel side. buttering / HAZ ferritic steel) and SS304LN are summarised in
Table 5. It can be seen that for any process the YSR is only over-
YSR = YSWM /YSBM (2)
matched on one side of the weld, the SS304LN. Current welding
where the YSWM and YSBM are yield strength of weld metal and consumables do not provide overmatching on the both sides and
base metal respectively. The YSR more than one (overmatching) is this is inherent problem for DMW integrity.
generally desired, and if it is less than one (under-matching) then, The YSRWM-BM508 observed to be more favourable with joints
strain concentration can occur in weld region and fracture can be welded with GMAW (Joint A-2, B-2) process than SMAW (joint
initiated from pre-existing defects [8,9,23,38] if any presents. The A-1, B-1) and is important for integrity assessment. The YSRBT-
effect of mismatch is significant when the strength of mismatched HZ508 for joints with buffer layer observed to be less than the joints
material exceed 10% [38]. without buffer layer. This indicates that, plastic strain concentra-
Therefore, the estimation of YSR would be important for in- tion and fracture initiation do not occur initially in ferritic steel
tegrity assessment of DMW joints. The calculated YSR for different base metal, HAZ ferritic steel, and weld metal but rather at
locations like ferritic steel side (weld metal / base metal and SS304LN and/or in buttering region of these joints. Considering

Fig. 15. Micro-hardness variations across the weldment regions of four weld joints.
 D.W. Rathod et al. / Materials Science & Engineering A 666 (2016) 100–113 109

Fig. 17. Typical stress-strain curves of weldment regions for weld joints (A) A-1 and B-1, and (B) A-2 and B-2.

Fig. 18. Average Yield Strength (YS) for weld joints. Fig. 21. Average Total Elongation (TE) for weld joints.

Fig. 22. Average Plastic Instability Strength (PIS) for weld joints.
Fig. 19. Average Ultimate Tensile Strength (UTS) for weld joints.

Table 5
Yield Strength Ratio (YSR) for all plate joints.

Weld Joint YSRWM-BM508 YSRBT-HZ508 YSRWM-BM304

A-1 0.54 0.70 1.39

A-2 0.64 0.60 1.65
B-1 0.56 0.56 1.46
B-2 0.61 0.58 1.58

Fig. 20. Average Uniform Elongation (UE) for weld joints.
the YSRBT-HZ508 for joints (Table 5), the results are found to be
consistent with composite tensile test during fully plastic de-
formation (Fig. 16). Hence, the one sample from joint B-1 in CTT
has been fractured from buttering region but satisfying the re-
quired strength as per DMW requirement as per ASME [8]. The
estimation of YSR could contribute the value addition in integrity
assessment [8,9,38] and same thing has been justified with this
110 D.W. Rathod et al. / Materials Science & Engineering A 666 (2016) 100–113
Fig. 23. Charpy V-notch impact toughness/energy for weldment regions of weld
joints.
study. The under-match in weld strength is not desirable but that
is inherent problem in DMW fabrication. The worst mismatch in
terms of YSR needs to be included (quantification range) in the
integrity assessment procedure and codes to ascertain the location
and type of failure mechanism.
3.7. Charpy V-notch impact toughness
The average impact toughness for all weldment regions of weld
joints are presented in the Fig. 23. The impact toughness of HAZ
ferritic steel region has been observed to be more than base metal
ferritic steel due to fine grain structure of HAZ (FGHAZ) ahead of
the crack tip (V-notch). The coarse grains in HAZ (CGHAZ) are
50 mm wider (Fig. 11(A) and (B)) hence, the exact positioning of
V-notch in CGHAZ is not possible. Therefore, the notches are po-
sitioned in the FGHAZ which having the hardness 250–275 HV100
(Fig. 15). The FGHAZ and fraction of reformed martensite as dis-
cussed earlier caused to increase the impact toughness marginally
in the HAZ of joints than the joint A-1. The weld chemistry in
buttering and the resulting phase structure has shown the in-
creased impact toughness of buttering region due to buffer layer
and GMAW buttering process. Same thing is also revealed in weld
metal region.
The buffer layer buttering process / welding process variations
suggest that the joints B-1, B-2 and A-2 have the favourable profile
of impact toughness in the spatial region of DMW and this is far
better than the joint fabricated with the existing procedure (joint
A-1). Based on spatial variations in DMW for impact toughness,
the buffer layered joint are most desirable by integrity assessment.
The impact toughness in weldment regions is found to be
consistent with microstructure and the tensile properties in the
study. The fracture surface of buttering region without buffer layer
Fig. 24. Fracture surfaces of Charpy specimens for buttering region of weld joints (A) A-1, without buffer layer and (B) B-2, with buffer layer.
(joint A-1) and with buffer layer (joint B-2) is shown in Fig. 24
(A) and (B) respectively. Large number of small size dimples shows
evidence of ductile tearing, as cab be seen in Fig. 24(A). Arrows
indicate the second phase particle nucleated micro-voids in but-
tering region. The multifaceted surface is observed to be dominant
than small size dimples in the Fig. 24(B) owing to variations
caused by Ni-Fe buffer layer. The multifaceted surface indicates
ductile tearing along the grains. While, the ductile tearing along
the grains is significantly less in Fig. 24(A) (joint A-1) than the
Fig. 24(B) (joint B-2) and this is found to be consistent and in
agreement with the observed results.
The fracture surface of weld metal of SMAW (joint A-1) and
GMAW (joint B-2) process are shown in Fig. 25(A) and
(B) respectively. The presence of fine slag inclusion due to coated
electrodes in the ductile dimples is clearly visible in SMAW (Fig. 25
(A)) but absent in weld of GMAW (Fig. 25(B)) process. The inclu-
sion and second phase particle nucleated micro-voids are shown
with arrows in Fig. 25(A) and (B). The dimple size in Fig. 25(A) is
observed to be smaller than Fig. 25(B) (GMAW process) and en-
circled in the figures. These observations are consistent with the
recorded impact toughness in the joints. The dimple orientation in
buttering region shows the columnar structure when compared
with the fracture surface of weld metal.
3.8. Fracture toughness testing
Typical Load - crack mouth opening displacement (CMOD)
diagram for weld metal of all weld joints has been analysed on the
specimens (Fig. 26(A)) and the Load-CMOD plots are shown in
Fig. 26(B). The CMOD values are found to increase steadily with
load in the elastic-plastic condition. Hence, the CTOD ( δ max ) cor-
responding to the maximum load point was employed for the
evaluation of CTOD ( δCmax ). For the computation of CTOD from the
CMOD value, the total CMOD corresponding to maximum load
point was divided into two parts, first belongs to CMOD corre-
sponding to the elastic part (ve) and other one is CMOD corre-
sponding to the plastic part (vp) of crack opening. The elastic (δe)
and plastic (δp) parts of CTOD were calculated [39] using (Eqs.
(3) and 4) respectively.
KI2(1 − υ2)
δe =
2EσYS (3)
where KI is the stress intensity factor corresponding to the critical
load, E is the elastic modulus, sYS is the yield strength and υ is the
Poisson's ratio.
Vp
δp = a
+1
r (W − a) (4)
where Vp is the plastic component of CMOD corresponding to the
 D.W. Rathod et al. / Materials Science & Engineering A 666 (2016) 100–113
Fig. 25. Fracture surfaces of Charpy specimens for weld metal region of weld joints (A) A-1, SMAW process and (B) B-2, GMAW process.
critical load, a is the original crack length, W is the width of the
specimen and r is the rotation factor which may be taken as 0.4 as
per standard.
Total CTOD (δc) was calculated using Eq. (5) as given below;
δc = δe + δp
Stress intensity factor in case of SENB test was calculated using
Eq. (6)
PS
KI = fα
BW 3/2
where fα is the function of α ¼(a/W) and given as
3α0.5[1.99 − α(1 − α )][2.15 − 3.93α + 2.7α 2]
fα = .
2(1 + 2α )(1 − α )1.5
where P is the maximum load, S is the span length and B is the
thickness of the specimen. For CTOD testing, according to ASTM
1290-02, the ratio of a/W is given as 0.45r a/Wr0.70. Whereas,
the a/W ratio of specimen in this study is ranging from 0.51 to
0.56. Hence, all specimens have satisfied the a/W requirement. The
CTOD values for the joints welded with GMAW process have been
observed to be significantly higher than the welded by SMAW
process owing to presence of fine slag inclusion in the weld. As an
effect of buttering deposition with buffer layer/buttering process,
the fracture toughness (CTOD) has been observed to be decreased
marginally in buffer-layered joints (B-1 and B-2) than joints A-1/A-
2. The resulted weld chemistry in weld metal due to different
buttering deposits and dilution as shown in Table 4, the Fe and Nb
content are marginally more in buffer layered joints (B-1/B-2) than
the joint A-1/A-2. The laves phase formation at grain boundary
would be more pronounced with joint B-1 and B-2 weld metal and
that may cause to marginal reduction in the CTOD fracture
Fig. 26. (A)Test specimen after CTOD test, and (B) Typical Load-CMOD plots with obtained results.
111
toughness. The better fracture toughness can be achieved by
GMAW process than the SMAW process welding.
4. Influence of investigated properties on integrity assessment
(5)
The reliable and precise methods for structural integrity as-
sessment of DMW joints are not available [9,37]. The designing of
DMW joints and its assessment is made at present on the figures/
facts and information obtained from similar metal welds. The
(6)
structural integrity assessment at present is depend on the out-
puts from several years of experience [9,40]. According to the in-
tegrity assessment described in R6, European method SINTAP, and
FITNET FFS [41–43], the dissimilar weld is considered as the
sandwich combination of parent metals and different weldment
region metals [9]. Variations in metallurgical and mechanical
properties in HAZs and the regions at fusion interfaces are sig-
nificant due to dilution and chemistry mismatch. However, these
variations and its resulting effects are not considered in existing
procedures and codes [9,37] for integrity assessment. Under-
matching and overmatching the weld strength with base metals is
inherent property of DMWs integrity and the defects or failures
may appear anywhere in the weldment regions. The under-
matching is serious concern and need to be quantified as the
minimum required criteria for the strength under-matching and
ductile failures in severe plastic deformation. The variations weld
strength in properties of buttering, weld metal and even in HAZs
could occur due to the weld chemistry mismatch and that is ap-
parent owing to composition gradient and the active diffusion
mechanism [7].
The fracture and failure mechanisms cannot be predicted for
112 D.W. Rathod et al. / Materials Science & Engineering A 666 (2016) 100–113
the notch positioned in any specific weldment region or at inter-
face owing to micro-segregation (chemistry mismatch) of the
formed phases and intermetallic compounds. In this condition, the
initiation of crack and its propagation path will be defined by the
formed phase structure and the intensity of micro-segregation in
very narrow zones near the interfaces. This can suggest that, the
existing procedure and codes cannot be really used with the de-
sired accuracy by compromising the failures in terms of nuclear
hazards. The variations in mechanical properties have significantly
affected the fracture resistance and crack growth path [37,41]. The
different metallurgical and mechanical properties with marginal
disparities in same material region could remain exist [37,44,45] in
weld materials. Crack initiation resistance and its propagation can
greatly be affected by heterogeneity in mechanical properties
across the weldment regions [9,46]. Therefore, the development
and modifications in existing procedures and codes of DMW in-
tegrity assessment can be made. This can be done by considering
the local mechanical properties with due considerations of HAZs
and interfacial zones by analysing the micro-segregation, weld
chemistry mismatch and the metallurgical properties in terms of
formed phase structure.
5. Conclusion
In present study, welding processes, buttering processes and
Ni-Fe buffer layer variations were analysed for metallurgical, me-
chanical and fracture toughness properties. The derived conclu-
sions from the analysis are listed here.
1. Lesser angular distortion (can be in terms of measure for re-
sidual stresses) can be achieved by introducing the buffer layer,
varying the buttering process and welding process. This dis-
tortion is significantly less than the existing procedure of DMW
fabrication.
2. The Ni-Fe alloy buffer layer in buttering causes the certain
variations in material chemistry of buttering and this is desir-
able for the thermal, metallurgical and mechanical properties
than the buttering without buffer layer in the weld joints.
Owing to Ni-Fe buffer layer, weld metal chemistry in buttering
changes and causes the effect on solubility of Nb and Ti due to
increased Fe content. This leads to more fraction of laves phases
and wider dendrite arms compared to buttering without Ni-Fe
buffer layer.
3. Carbon depleted soft zone is formed ( 50 mm) in HAZ of
SA508Gr.3Cl.1 of the joints without buffer-layered buttering
while, the carbon enriched hard zone (  60 mm) is formed with
Ni-Fe buffer-layered joints. This variation justifies the control of
carbon migration owing to buffer layer in the DMW joints.
4. The tensile properties with buffer layer joints are more desir-
able and favourable. The most favourable properties are re-
corded with buffer layered buttering joint welded with GMAW
process. While, the least favourable properties are found with
conventional joint (joint A-1). Charpy impact toughness in the
weldment regions recommends the Ni-Fe buffer layer and the
GMAW process for welding of such DMWs. Weld strength and
ductility of the weldment (composite tensile test) is marginally
favourable with Ni-Fe buffer layered joints than without buffer-
layered joints.
5. YSR and PIS suggests the conventional procedure of DMW (joint
A-1) is least favourable against the buffer layered and GMAW
processes employed weld joints in study.
6. The fracture toughness (CTOD) of the GMAW weld joint is sig-
nificantly more than SMAW joints due to presence of fine slag
inclusions from the coated electrode in the resulted weld.
7. Effective use of GMAW process for buttering and welding along
with the buffer layer application can be possible. While, the
modification in integrity assessment procedure can be possible
by considering the interfacial region properties, chemistry
mismatch and the YSR/PIS measurement criteria.
Acknowledgement
The authors acknowledge the support given by Board of Re-
search in Nuclear Sciences, Department of Atomic Energy (Grant
sanction number - 2008/36/107-BRNS/4038A) (India) for present
work. In addition, author also thankfully acknowledging the
technical expertise offered by Joanna N. Walsh, School of Materi-
als, University of Manchester for the present work.
References
[1] A.K. Bhaduri, S. Venkadesan, P. Rodriguez, P.G. Mukunda, Int. J. Press. Vessels
Pip. 58 (1994) 251–265.
[2] C.D. Lundin, Weld. Res. Suppl. 61 (1982) S58–S63.
[3] R. Miteva, N.G. Taylor, in: E. Commission (Ed.), NESC report, Institute for En-
ergy Netherland, 2006.
[4] N. Taylor, C. Faidy, P. Gilles, in: Institute for Energy, European Commission, DG-
Joint Research Centre, 2006.
[5] F.W.B. Brust, P. Scott, in: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on
Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology (SMiRT 19), SMiRT 19, Toronto,
2007.
[6] F.W. Brust, P.M. Scott, Y. Yang, in: Proceedings of the 17th International Con-
ference on Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology International Asso-
ciation for Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology Praque, Czech Repub-
lic, 2003 pp. 1–8.
[7] D.W. Rathod, S. Aravindan, P.K. Singh, S. Pandey, ISIJ Int. 54 (2014) 1866–1875.
[8] D.W. Rathod, S. Pandey, P.K. Singh, R. Prasad, Mater. Sci. Eng.: A 639 (2015)
259–268.
[9] D.W. Rathod, S. Pandey, P.K. Singh, R. Prasad, J. Press. Vessel Technol. 138
(2016) 011403–011403.
[10] J.N. DuPont, R.E. Mizia, in: Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho Falls, Idaho, March
2010, pp. 1–68.
[11] J.A. Francis, H.K.D.H. Bhadeshia, P.J. Withers, Mater. Sci. Technol. 23 (9) (2007)
1009–1020.
[12] M. Sireesha, S.K. Albert, V. Shankar, S. Sundaresan, J. Nucl. Mater. 279 (2000)
65–76.
[13] A. Celik, A. Alsaran, Mater. Charact. 43 (1999) 311–318.
[14] C. Jang, J. Lee, J. Sung Kim, T. Eun Jin, Int. J. Press. Vessels Pip. 85 (2008)
635–646.
[15] M. Sireesha, V. Shankar, S.K. Albert, S. Sundaresan, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 292
(2000) 74–82.
[16] M. Sireesha, S.K. Albert, S. Sundaresan, Int. J. Press. Vessels Pip. 79 (2002)
819–827.
[17] C.R. Das, A.K. Bhaduri, G. Srinivasan, V. Shankar, S. Mathew, J. Mater. Process.
Technol. 209 (2009) 1428–1435.
[18] A.K. Bhaduri, I. Gowrisankar, V. Seetharaman, NWS-86, India, 1986, pp. 51–63.
[19] M. Sireesha, S.K. Albert, S. Sundarasan, Metall. Mater. Trans. A 36A (2005)
1495–1505.
[20] C. Sudha, A.L.E. Terrance, S.K. Albert, M. Vijayalakshmi, J. Nucl. Mater. 302
(2002) 193–205.
[21] Y.Y. Ying, S.R. Kae, S.R. Haur, C. Chun, J. Mater. Sci. Lett. 20 (2001) 1429–1432.
[22] R. Anand, C. Sudha, V.T. Paul, S. Saroja, Suppl. Weld. J. 89 (2010) 65s–74s.
[23] D.W. Rathod, Dep. Mech. Eng. (IIT Delhi, New Delhi) (2015) 383.
[24] J. Frankel, A. Abbate, W. Scholz, Exp. Mech. 33 (1993) 164–168.
[25] A. Abbate, J. Frankel, W. Scholz, in, US Army Armament Research, Develop-
ment and Engineering Center, Watervliet, N.Y. 12189–4050, May 1993.
[26] H. Naffakh, M. Shamanian, F. Ashrafizadeh, Metall. Mater. Trans. A 39A (2008)
2403–2415.
[27] H. Naffakh, M. Shamanian, F. Ashrafizadeh, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 209
(2009) 3628–3639.
[28] J.W. Elmer, D.L. Olson, D.K. Matlock, Weld. J. 61 (1982) 293s–301s.
[29] S.H. Ryu, J.H. Park, C.S. Lee, J.C. Lee, S.H. Ahn, S.T. Oh, Mater. Trans. 50 (2009)
1553–1557.
[30] J.N. Dupont, C.S. Kusko, Weld. J. 86 (2007) 51s–54s.
[31] J.N. DuPont, S. Babu, S. Liu, Metall. Mater. Trans. A 44A (2013) 3385–3410.
[32] G.J. Brentrup, J.N. Dupont, Weld. J. 92 (2013).
[33] R. Dehmolaei, M. Shamanian, A. Kermanpur, Mater. Charact. 59 (2008)
1447–1454.
[34] I. Hajiannia, M. Shamanian, M. Kasiri, Mater. Des. 50 (2013) 566–573.
[35] J.N. Dupont, S.W. Banovic, A.R. Marder, Weld. J. 82 (6) (2003) 125s–135s.
[36] G. Srinivasan, A.K. Bhaduri, in: Proceedings of 63rd Annual Assembly & In-
ternational Conference of the International Institute of Welding, Istanbul,
Turkey, July 2010, pp. 81–87.
 D.W. Rathod et al. / Materials Science & Engineering A 666 (2016) 100–113 113

[37] H.T. Wang, G.Z. Wang, F.Z. Xuan, C.J. Liu, S.T. Tu, Mater. Sci. Eng.: A 568 (2013)
108–117.
[38] J.W. Kim, K. Lee, J.S. Kim, T.S. Byun, J. Nucl. Mater. 384 (2009) 212–221.
[39] N.K. Sharma, D.K. Sehgal, R.K. Pandey, Eng. Lett. 19 (4) (2011) 1–6.
[40] R. Chhibber, N. Arora, S. Gupta, B. Dutta, Proceedings of the Institution of
Mechanical Engineers, Part C: Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science, 220,
2006, pp. 1121–1133.
[41] Procedure R6-Revision 4, Nuclear Electric Ltd, Gloucester, R6, 2007.
[42] British, SINTAP Steel Report, Sheffield, European SINTAP Procedure., 1999.
[43] M. Kocak, in: D.M. KOÇAK (Ed.) Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Assembly &
International Conference of the International Institute of Welding, Istanbul,
Turkey, Lecture, 2010.
[44] H.T. Wang, G.Z. Wang, F.Z. Xuan, S.T. Tu, Eng. Fail. Anal. 28 (2013) 134–148.
[45] H.T. Wang, G.Z. Wang, F.Z. Xuan, S.T. Tu, Mater. Des. 44 (2013) 179–189.
[46] B. Younise, A. Sedmak, M. Rakin, N. Gubeljak, B. Medjo, M. Burzić, M. Zrilić,
Mater. Des. 37 (2012) 193–201.