Overview Welding
Solidification and Liquation Cracking
Issues in Welding
Sindo Kou
Solidification cracking can occur in
the fusion zone during the solidification
of the weld metal. Liquation cracking, on
the other hand, can occur in the partially
melted zone during the solidification
of the liquated material. These two
types of cracking are reviewed in this
article, including the factors that affect
cracking and the remedies.
INTRODUCTION
Solidification cracking can occur in
the fusion zone and liquation cracking
can occur in the partially melted zone
during welding. During the welding of
an alloy, the weld pool is surrounded
by semisolid materials (Figure 1).1 For
convenience, circular-patch welding is
used as an example here. The workpiece
shown in Figure 1 consists of an inner
piece in the form of a circular patch
and an outer piece, which is held tightly
to the fixture with bolts (not shown)
that go through the holes. The pool
boundary is the liquidus temperature of
the weld metal during welding. Behind
the weld pool is the solidifying material
called the mushy zone, which is a
semisolid consisting of dendrites (S) and
the interdendritic liquid (L). Behind the
mushy zone is the completely solidified
material called the fusion zone or the
weld metal.
In front of and on the sides of the
weld pool is a semisolid consisting of
partially melted base-metal grains (S)
and the intergranular liquid (L). Here,
the temperature is above the eutectic
temperature of the base metal (or the
solidus temperature if the workpiece
is solutionized to dissolve eutectic
completely before welding). Behind
the partially melted grains on the
pool sides is the completely solidified
material called the partially melted
zone (PMZ).
2003 June • JOM
Figure 2a and b shows examples of between grains.8 When localized tensile
solidification cracking and liquation stresses/strains in the material exceed
cracking in circular-patch welds of its resistance to cracking, solidification
aluminum alloys. As shown, solidifica- cracking occurs.
tion cracking occurs more or less
ASSESSING SOLIDIFICATION-
along the centerline of the weld, while
CRACKING SUSCEPTIBILITY
liquation cracking takes place along
the outer edge of the weld. These two Several tests have been used to
types of cracking will be discussed in evaluate susceptibility to solidification
this article. cracking,9,10 including the Houldcroft
SOLIDIFICATION CRACKING
Solidification cracking, as shown in
Figure 3a, is intergranular. The fracture
surface often reveals the dendritic
morphology of the solidifying weld
metal.1 These two characteristics suggest
that solidification cracking occurs during
the terminal stage of solidification,
where dendrites have grown nearly fully
into grains that are separated from one
another by a small amount of liquid in
the form of grain-boundary films. At
this time, the weld metal can be rather
weak and thus susceptible to cracking in
the presence of tensile stresses/strains.
Tensile stresses/strains can be induced
in the weld metal if it cannot contract
freely during cooling, for instance, in
a highly restrained workpiece such
as in circular-patch welding (Figure 1).
The weld metal tends to contract during
cooling because of solidification shrink-
age and thermal contraction.
Various theories of solidification
cracking have been proposed.2–7 Accord-
ing to Borland,8 there are essentially three
solidification cracking theories—the
shrinkage-brittleness theory, the strain
theory, and the generalized theory that
includes the relevant ideas from the
first two theories. According to the Figure 1. Semisolid materials, namely,
generalized theory, cracking can take partially melted base-metal grains and
the mushy zone, around the weld pool
place in a material in which continu- of an alloy during welding (for instance,
ous liquid films separate grains or in circular-patch welding).
which some solid-solid bridges exist
37
 solidification
cracking
a solidification phase, the surface tension
b
5 mm
Figure 2. Macrographs showing cracking
in aluminum circular-patch welds: (a)
solidification cracking; (b) liquation
cracking.71
test,11–14 Varestraint test,15–18 circular-
patch test,19–21 and Sigamajig test.22 The
Varestraint test and the circular-patch
test are used often and described briefly
here. In the Varestraint test, developed
by Savage and Lundin,15 an augmented
tensile strain is applied to the test
specimen by bending it to a controlled
radius at an appropriate moment during
welding. Both the amount of the applied
strain and the crack length (either the
total length of all cracks or the maximum
crack length) serve as the index of
cracking sensitivity. The specimen can
also be bent transverse to the welding
direction. This transverse Varestraint
test16 may promote cracking inside
the weld metal more than outside the
weld metal.
In the circular-patch test19–21 (shown
in Figure 1), where the outer piece is
restrained by bolts, the weld tends to
contract upon cooling, inducing tension
at its outer edge and compression at
its inner edge. The tensile stresses and
strains at the outer edge are in the
direction transverse to the weld. This
is why liquation cracking occurs along
the outer edge of the weld (Figure 2b).
38
The crack length serves as the index of
cracking sensitivity.
FACTORS AFFECTING
SOLIDIFICATION CRACKING
Several factors can affect the solidi-
fication cracking susceptibility of weld
metals, including1 the solidification
temperature range, the amount and
distribution of liquid at the terminal
stage of solidification, the primary
of the grain-boundary liquid, the grain
structure, the ductility of the solidifying
weld metal, and the tendency of weld-
metal contraction and the degree of
restraint. All these factors are directly
or indirectly affected by the weld-metal
composition. The first two factors are
affected by microsegregation during
solidification. Microsegregation in turn
can be affected by the cooling rate
during solidification. In some cases, the
primary solidification phase can also be
affected by the cooling rate (for instance,
austenitic stainless steels).
Generally speaking, the wider the
solidification temperature range, the
larger the area that is weak and suscep-
tible to weld-solidification cracking.
DuPont et al.23 showed that in niobium-
bearing superalloys, the maximum
crack length in Varestraint testing
increases with increasing solidification
temperature range. S and P can widen
the solidification temperature range of
steels, stainless steels, and nickel-base
superalloys significantly, thus increasing
their cracking susceptibility.24–27
In pure aluminum there is no solute-
rich liquid of a low freezing point at
grain boundaries to cause solidification
cracking. In highly alloyed aluminum,
on the other hand, there is abundant
solute-rich liquid of a low freezing
point between grains to backfill and
“heal” any incipient cracks that form.3
Somewhere in between these two cases
there exists a composition where just
enough solute-rich liquid can form
thin continuous grain-boundary films to
cause the maximum sensitivity to crack-
ing. Figure 4a through d shows the effect
of composition on the solidification-
cracking sensitivity of several binary
aluminum alloys.28–32 Figure 4e shows
the crack sensitivity in pulsed-laser
welding of Al-Cu alloys.33 Each curve
shows a maximum crack sensitivity.
Dupont et al.23 observed in some
niobium-bearing superalloys that the
amount of the terminal liquid undergo-
ing the L→γ + Laves reaction is small
and remains isolated, thus not really
contributing to solidification cracking.
This type of morphology, unlike the
continuous terminal liquid undergoing
the same reaction in the more crack-
susceptible alloys, should be more
resistant to crack propagation throughout
the mushy zone.
For austenitic stainless steels, the
susceptibility to solidification cracking
is much lower when the primary
solidification phase is δ-ferrite rather
than austenite. 34–36 As the ratio of
the chromium equivalent to nickel
equivalent increases, the primary
solidification phase changes from
austenite to δ-ferrite and cracking is
reduced. As shown by Takalo et al.,35
this change occurs at about Creq/Nieq =
1.5, where Creq = Cr + 1.37Mo + 1.5Si
+ 2Nb + 3Ti and Nieq = Ni + 0.3Mn
+ 22C + 14.2N + Cu. However, this
value can increase with increasing
cooling rate during welding because of
undercooling, for instance, to Creq/Nieq =
1.6–1.7 in pulsed-laser welding.36
The effect of the surface tension of
the grain-boundary liquid is such that
the smaller the dihedral angle, the more
the grain-boundary liquid tends to form
continuous films on grains.37 Nakata and
Matsuda16 showed that solidification
cracking in several aluminum alloys
increases with deceasing dihedral angle
of the grain-boundary liquid.
For aluminum alloys, welds with finer
equiaxed grains were found less sus-
ceptible to solidification cracking.16,38–40
Fine equiaxed grains can deform to
accommodate contraction strains more
easily; that is, they are more ductile.
Liquid feeding and the healing of
incipient cracks can also be more
effective in fine-grained material. In
addition, the grain-boundary area is
much greater in fine-grained material
and, therefore, segregates of low melting
points are less concentrated at the grain
boundary.
Nakata and Matsuda16 proposed that
the ductility of the solidifying weld
metal has a strong effect on solidification
cracking. They used the transverse
Varestraint test to determine ductility of
the solidifying weld metal as a function
JOM • June 2003

a
b fraction of the base metal in the weld
0.5 µm
Figure 3. Micrographs showing cracking
in aluminum welds: (a) solidification
cracking; (b) liquation cracking.
of temperature. The resultant ductility vs.
temperature curve is called the ductility
curve, with the liquidus temperature TL
as the upper bound and the temperature
at the tip of the longest crack as the
lower bound. The slope of a line passing
through TL and tangent to the ductility
curve is called the critical strain rate
for temperature drop (CST), that is, the
critical rate at which the strain varies
with temperature drop. According to
Nakata and Matsuda,16 CST correlates
well with the cracking susceptibility of
the weld metal.
Both the tendency of weld-metal
contraction and the degree of restraint
are factors that can affect solidification
cracking.1 As already mentioned, the
weld metal tends to contract due to
solidification shrinkage and thermal
contraction. Austenitic stainless steels
REMEDIES FOR
SOLIDIFICATION CRACKING
Solidification cracking can be reduced
by adjusting the weld-metal composi-
tion, the grain structure, and the welding
condition.1
When welding aluminum alloys,
it is desirable to have a weld-metal
composition that is away from the peak
of the crack sensitivity curve (shown
in Figure 4). To reach the desired weld-
metal composition, a filler metal of a
proper composition can be used and the
welding parameters can be selected to
achieve the desired dilution ratio (the
metal). The maps of crack sensitivity
vs. composition for ternary aluminum
alloys are also useful.31,41
When welding austenitic stainless
steels, as mentioned previously, it
is desirable to have a weld-metal
composition such that the weld-ferrite
content is at a level of 5–10% in
order to avoid solidification cracking.
Quantitative relationships between the
weld-ferrite content and the weld-metal
composition in austenitic stainless steels
have been determined by Schaeffler,42
DeLong,43 Kotecki,44,45 Balmforth et
al.,46 and Vitek et al.47,48 With the help of
such quantitative information, proper
filler metals and dilution ratios can be
selected to insure enough weld-ferrite
content.
When welding carbon and low-alloy
steels, it is desirable to have a weld-
metal composition such that the weld-
metal Mn/S ratio is sufficiently high to
avoid solidification cracking. Increasing
the Mn/S ratio promotes the formation
of MnS rather than FeS. This is because
the high melting point and the globular
morphology of MnS tend to make
with titanium and aluminum nitride,51,52
and in aluminum alloys with titanium
and zirconium.53–56 Dudas and Collins32
produced grain refining and eliminated
solidification cracking in an Al-Zn-Mg
filler weld by adding small amounts of
zirconium to the filler metal.
Solidification cracking has been
reduced by the following means: Gar-
land57 grain refined welds of aluminum-
magnesium alloys by mechanically
vibrating the arc during welding; Kou
and Le58 grain refined welds of 5052
aluminum by magnetic-arc oscillation
(20 Hz); David and Liu59 refined iridium
welds by magnetic-arc oscillation;
and Tseng and Savage60 refined the
solidification structure within the grains
of HY-80 steel, though not the grains
themselves.
Kou and Le58,61,62 used low-frequency
(1 Hz) magnetic-arc oscillation during
gas-tungsten-arc welding of aluminum
alloys and forced the weld-metal
columnar grains to change their growth
direction periodically. Solidification
cracking was reduced effectively because
a crack had to change its direction
periodically in order to propagate down
Relative Crack Sensitivity
Composition of Weld, % Alloying Element
Total Crack Length (mm)

have relatively high thermal expansion
coefficients (as compared to mild steels)
and, therefore, are often prone to
solidification cracking. The solidifica-
tion shrinkage of aluminum is as high
as 6.6%.5 The thermal expansion coef-
ficient of aluminum is roughly twice
that of iron-based alloys. As a result,
many aluminum alloys are susceptible
to solidification cracking. As mentioned
previously, tensile stress/strains are
induced in the weld metal when the
weld metal cannot contract freely during
welding.
sulfur less detrimental. At relatively low
carbon levels the solidification-cracking
tendency can be reduced by increasing
the Mn/S ratio.49 However, at higher
carbon levels (i.e., 0.2–0.3% C),
increasing the Mn/S ratio is no longer
Copper Content (wt%)
effective. 50 In such cases lowering
Figure 4. Effect of composition on crack
the weld-metal carbon content, if sensitivity of some aluminum alloys. (a–d)
permissible, is more effective. from Reference 32; (e) from Reference
The grains of the weld metal can be 33. (Reprinted from Kou.1)
refined by inoculation and arc oscilla-
tion to reduce solidification cracking.
Grain refining by inoculation has been
achieved in steels and stainless steels

2003 June • JOM 39


Figure 5. Mechanism of liquation cracking in the partially melted
zone of a full-penetration aluminum weld.71
the weld along grain boundaries.
In addition, favorable welding condi-
tions can be used to reduce solidification
cracking. For instance, reducing restraint
helps reduce solidification cracking.
Making the weld surface slightly convex
can help prevent surface shrinkage
cracks that tend to occur in welds with
a concave surface.63 This is because
the surface is less in tension when it
is slightly convex. Reducing the weld
depth-to-width ratio can help prevent
centerline cracking that tends to occur
in welds with a steep angle of abutment
between columnar grains growing from
opposite sides of the weld pool.63 This
type of cracking is often observed
in deep and narrow welds produced
by electron beam or submerged arc
welding.
LIQUATION CRACKING
Liquation cracking, as shown in
Figure 3b, is intergranular just like
solidification cracking. However, unlike
solidification cracking, the fracture
surface does not reveal any dendritic
morphology. The presence of a liquid
phase at the intergranular fracture
40
surface is sometimes evident,64 but not
always.65,66
Liquation cracking occurs in the
PMZ of a weld, which is immediately
outside the fusion zone, because of
heating above the eutectic temperature
(or the solidus temperature if the
workpiece is completely solutionized
before welding) in the PMZ.1 Liquation
can occur along the grain boundary
as well as in the grain interior. Grain-
boundary liquation makes the PMZ
susceptible to liquation cracking.
Liquation cracking1,70 has also been
called edge-of-weld cracking,32 base-
metal cracking,67 hot cracking,68 and
heat-affected zone cracking.69 The name
liquation cracking is used here.
Huang and Kou71 showed in Figure 5
the development of liquation cracking in
the PMZ of a full-penetration aluminum
weld. Since the PMZ is weakened by
grain-boundary liquation, it can crack
if the solidifying and contracting weld
metal is stronger than it.
Huang and Kou72 used curves of
temperature (T) vs. solid fraction (fS)
to help understand liquation cracking.
Since the strength of a semisolid is
likely to increase primarily with the
solid fraction, they proposed that if
the weld-metal fS exceeds the PMZ fS
during PMZ terminal solidification, the
solidifying and contracting weld metal
can become stronger than the PMZ it
pulls, and liquation cracking is likely
to occur if tensile stresses/strains and
liquation are both significant in the
PMZ.
For example, Huang and Kou72 made
full-penetration, circular-patch welds
in 6061 aluminum with filler metals
5356 (Al-5Mg) and 4043 (Al-5Si). At
the dilution ratio of about 65%, severe
liquation cracking occurred in the weld
made with 5356 but no cracking was
observed in the weld made with 4043.
Figure 6 shows the T-fS curves for
both the weld metal and the PMZ at
the fusion boundary, calculated using
Pandat73 based on the multicomponent
Scheil equation. The curves show that,
at about 65% dilution, 5356 made the
weld metal fS greater than the PMZ
fS during PMZ terminal solidification
while 4043 made the weld metal fS
less than the PMZ fS throughout PMZ
solidification.
The susceptibility of the PMZ to
hot cracking can be evaluated using
several different methods, such as
the Varestraint test,74–76 circular-patch
test,65,71,72 and hot-ductility test.66
FACTORS AFFECTING
LIQUATION CRACKING
The liquation cracking susceptibility
of the PMZ can be affected by the extent
of liquation, the grain structure, the hot
ductility, and weld-metal contraction
and the degree of restraint.1
The greater the extent of liquation,
the more likely that liquation cracking
can occur. The extent of liquation in the
PMZ depends on the tendency of the
material to liquate and the level of heat
input. The tendency of an aluminum
alloy to liquate increases with increasing
freezing temperature range and fraction
of liquid during freezing. For instance,
alloy 7075 liquates much more severely
than alloy 6061 because the former
has a wider freezing temperature range
and a greater fraction of liquid during
freezing.77 The tendency to liquate can
also increase with increasing grain-
boundary segregation in the workpiece
material. As-cast materials, for instance,
JOM • June 2003
tend to have more grain-boundary
segregation.
The higher the heat input, the greater
the liquation and the more likely liqua-
tion cracking can occur. The heat input
depends on the welding process and
parameters and the workpiece thickness.
Miyazaki et al.76 observed in 6061
aluminum welds made with filler 5356
that liquation cracking increased with
increasing heat input per unit length
of weld.
A base metal with coarser grains is
more susceptible to liquation cracking.
The coarser the grain, the less ductile
the PMZ becomes. Furthermore, the
coarser the grains, the smaller the
grain-boundary area and hence, the
more concentrated the impurities or
low-melting segregates are at the grain
boundary. Increasing liquation cracking
with increasing grain size has been
observed in aluminum alloys76,78 and
Inconel 718.79,80
Hot ductility can also play a role in
liquation cracking. Several different
criteria have been used for interpreting
hot-ductility curves. 81 It has been
suggested that an alloy that recovers its
ductility easily during cooling tends to
be more crack resistant.66
Both the tendency of weld-metal
contraction and the degree of restraint
can affect the susceptibility to liquation
cracking.1 The more the weld metal
contracts, the more likely the PMZ will
crack. The more severely the workpiece
is restrained, the more likely liquation
cracking will occur.
REMEDIES FOR LIQUATION
CRACKING
Liquation cracking can be reduced by
controlling the weld-metal composition,
the welding condition, and the base
metal.
The weld-metal composition can be
adjusted by selecting a proper filler
metal and dilution ratio. Metzger67
observed liquation cracking in 6061
aluminum welds made with Al-Mg
fillers at high dilution ratios but not in
welds made with Al-Si fillers at any
dilution ratios. Gittos et al.65 observed
liquation cracking in alloy 6082 welded
with NG61 (equivalent to 5356) filler at
high dilution ratios (about 80%) but not
in welds made with NG21 (equivalent
to 4043) filler at any dilution ratios.
2003 June • JOM
Katoh et al.,74 Kerr et al.,75 and Miyazaki
et al.76 studied liquation cracking in
6000-series alloys including 6061.
Longitudinal liquation cracking occurred
when alloy 6061 was welded with a
5356 filler but not with a 4043 filler.
As shown previously, Huang and Kou72
showed that T-fS curves can be used to
help select the weld-metal composition
to avoid liquation cracking.
The sensitivity of the PMZ to liquation
cracking can be reduced by decreasing
the degree of restraint and, hence, the
level of tensile stresses. The size of the
PMZ and, hence, the extent of PMZ
liquation can be reduced by reducing
the heat input. In order to minimize
liquation cracking, the heat input can be
kept low by using multi-pass welding or
low-heat-input welding processes (such
as electron beam and gas-tungsten-arc
welding) when possible.
Liquation cracking can be reduced
by selecting the proper base metal
for welding if it is feasible. The base-
metal composition, grain structure,
and microsegregation can affect the
susceptibility of the PMZ to liquation
cracking significantly. Using base metals
that have low sulfur and phosphorus can
help reduce the freezing temperature
range and, hence, liquation cracking.
Using fine-grained materials helps
reduce liquation cracking because of
better ductility and lower concentrations
)
(
( )
of liquation-inducing segregates. As-cast
materials are particularly susceptible
to liquation cracking because of the
presence of low-melting segregates
along grain boundaries. Upon heating
during welding, severe grain-boundary
liquation can occur in the PMZ, making it
highly susceptible to liquation cracking.
Examples include as-cast 304 stainless
steel82 and as-cast corrosion-resistant
austenitic stainless steel.83 By heat
treating to homogenize the castings
before welding, liquation cracking can
be reduced.
CONCLUSION
Experimental data of crack sensitivity
vs. composition are useful for selecting
the proper weld-metal composition to
avoid solidification cracking. To avoid
liquation cracking at the same time,
however, the weld-metal composition
should be such that the weld metal
solidifies after the partially melted zone
does. Curves of temperature vs. solid
fraction of the weld metal and the base
metal (same as the partially melted zone)
can help select the proper weld-metal
composition.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work was supported by the
National Science Foundation under
Grant No. DMR-0098776. The authors
are grateful to Bruce Albrecht and
Figure 6. Temperature vs.
solid fraction for 6061 base
metal (PMZ) and weld metal
of 6061 welds made with filler
metals 5356 and 4043 at
about 65% dilution. Curves
calculated using Pandat 73 of
CompuTherm LLC.72
41
Todd Holverson of Miller Electric
Manufacturing Company, Appleton,
Wisconsin for donating the welding
equipment (including Invision 456P
power source and XR-M wire feeder and
gun) and for their technical assistance.
The authors thank Y.A. Chang, a profes-
sor at the University of Wisconsin-
Madison, for letting them use the
database required for calculating the
T-fS curves.
References
1. S. Kou, Welding Metallurgy, 2nd edition (New York:
John Wiley, 2003), pp. 263–339.
2. G.J. Davies and J.G. Garland, Int. Metal Rev.,
20 (1975), p. 83.
3. D.C.G. Lees, J. Inst. Metals, 72 (1946), p. 343.
4. A.R.E. Singer and P.H. Jennings, J. Inst. Metals,
73 (1947), p. 273.
5. M.C. Flemings, Solidification Processing (New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1974).
6. H.F. Bishop et al., Trans. AFS, 68 (1960), p. 518.
7. J.C. Borland, Br. Weld. J., 7 (1960), p. 508.
8. J.C. Borland, Welding and Metal Fabrication, 47
(January/February 1979), pp. 19–29.
9. R.D. Stout, Weldability of Steels, 3rd edition, ed.
R.D. Stout and W.D. Doty (New York: Welding Research
Council, 1978), p. 252.
10. R.W. Messler, Jr., Principles of Welding, Processes,
Physics, Chemistry and Metallurgy (New York: Wiley,
1999), pp. 557–589.
11. P.T. Houldcroft, Br. Weld. J., 2 (1955), p. 471.
12. J.A. Liptax and F.R. Baysinger, Weld. J., 47
(1968), p. 173s.
13. J.G. Garland and G.J. Davies, Metals Const. Br.
Weld. J., 16 (December 1969), p. 565.
14. J.H. Rogerson, B. Cotterell, and J.C. Borland, Weld.
J., 42 (1963), p. 264s.
15. W.F. Savage and C.D. Lundin, Weld. J., 44 (1965),
p. 433s.
16. K. Nakata and F. Matsuda, Trans. JWRI, 24
(1995), p. 83.
17. K.F. Krysiak et al., Welding, Brazing, and Soldering,
Volume 6 (Materials Park, OH: ASM International,
1993), p. 443.
18. J.N. DuPont, J. R. Michael, and B.D. Newbury, Weld.
J., 78 (1999), p. 408s.
19. M.J. Cieslak, Weld. J., 66 (1987), p. 57s.
20. S.A. David and J.J. Woodhouse, Weld. J., 66
(1987), p. 129s.
21. T.W. Nelson et al., Weld. J., 76 (1997), p. 110s.
22. G.M. Goodwin, Weld. J., 66 (1987), p. 33s.
23. J.N. DuPont, C.V. Robino, and A.R. Marder, Sci.
Technol. Weld. Join., 4 (1999), p. 1.
24. G.R. Pease, Weld. J., 36 (1957), p. 330s.
25. D.A. Canonico et al., Welding Research Council
Symposium on Effects of Minor Elements on the
Weldability of High-Nickel Alloys (New York: Welding
Research Council, 1969), p. 68.
42
26. W.F. Savage, E.F. Nippes, and G.M. Goodwin, Weld.
J., 56 (1977), p. 245s.
27. D.H. Kah and D.W. Dickinson, Weld. J., 60 (1981),
p. 135s.
28. A.R.E. Singer and P.H. Jennings, J. Inst. Metals,
73 (1947), p. 197.
29. W.I. Pumphrey and J.V. Lyons, J. Inst. Metals,
74 (1948), p. 439.
30. J.D. Dowd, Weld. J., 31 (1952), p. 448s.
31. P.H. Jennings, A.R.E. Singer, and W.L. Pumphrey,
J. Inst. Metals, 74 (1948), p. 227.
32. J.H. Dudas and F.R. Collins, Weld. J., 45 (1966),
p. 241s.
33. E.J. Michaud, H.W. Kerr, and D.C. Weckman,
Trends in Welding Research, ed. H.B. Smartt, J.A.
Johnson, and S.A. David (Materials Park, OH: ASM
International, 1995), p. 154.
34. A. Gueussier and R. Castro, Rev. Metall., 57
(1960), p. 117.
35. T. Takalo, N. Suutala, and T. Moisio, Metall. Trans.,
10A (1979), p. 1173.
36. T.J. Lienert, Trends in Welding Research, ed. J.M.
Vitek et al. (Materials Park, OH: ASM International,
1998), p. 726.
37. C.R. Smith, Trans. AIME, 175 (1948), p. 15.
38. F. Matsuda et al., Trans JWRI, 12 (1983), p. 93.
39. F. Matsuda et al., Trans JWRI, 13 (1984), p. 57.
40. M.J. Dvornak, R.H. Frost, and D.L. Olson, Weld.
J., 68 (1989), p. 327s.
41. W.L. Pumphrey and D.C. Moore, J. Inst. Metals,
73 (1948), p. 425.
42. A.L. Schaeffler, Metal. Prog., 56 (1949), p. 680.
43. W.T. Delong, Weld. J., 53 (1974), p. 273s.
44. D.J. Kotecki, Weld. J., 78 (1999), p. 180s.
45. D.J. Kotecki, Weld. J., 79 (2000), p. 346s.
46. M.C. Balmforth and J.C. Lippold, Weld. J., 79
(2000), p. 339s.
47. J.M. Vitek, Y.S. Iskander, and E.M. Oblow, Weld. J.,
79 (2000), pp. 33s and 41s.
48. J.M. Vitek, S.A. David, and C.R. Hinman, Weld.
J., 82 (2003), p. 43s.
49. R.B. Smith, Welding, Brazing, and Soldering,
Volume 6 (Materials Park, OH: ASM International,
1993), p. 642.
50. J.C. Borland, Br. Weld. J., 8 (1961), p. 526.
51. G.N. Heintze and R. McPherson, Weld. J., 65
(1986), p. 71s.
52. W.A. Petersen, Weld. J., 53 (1973), p. 74s.
53. B.P. Pearce and H.W. Kerr, Metall. Trans., 12B
(1981), p. 479.
54. F. Matsuda et al., Trans. JWRI, 12 (1983), p. 93.
55. H. Yunjia et al., Weld. J., 68 (1983), p. 280s.
56. S. Sundaresan et al., Science and Technology of
Welding and Joining, 5 (2000), p. 257.
57. J.G. Garland, Metal Const. Br. Weld. J., 21 (1974),
p. 121.
58. S. Kou and Y. Le, Weld. J., 64 (1985), p. 51.
59. S.A. David and C.T. Liu, Grain Refinement in
Castings and Welds, ed. G.J. Abbaschian and S.A.
David (Warrendale, PA: The Metallurgical Society of
AIME, 1983), p. 249.
60. C. Tseng and W.F. Savage, Weld. J., 50 (1971),
p. 777.
61. S. Kou and Y. Le, Metall. Trans., 16A (1985),
p. 1887.
62. S. Kou and Y. Le, Metall. Trans., 16A (1985),
p. 1345.
63. O.W. Blodgett, Weld. Innovation Q., 2 (3) (1985),
p. 4.
64. R.G. Thompson, ASM Handbook, volume 6
(Materials Park, OH: ASM International, 1993), p.
566.
65. N.F. Gittos and M.H. Scott, Weld. J., 60 (1981),
p. 95s.
66. M.J. Cieslak, ASM Handbook, Welding, Brazing
and Soldering, vol. 6 (Materials Park, OH: ASM
International, 1993), p. 88.
67. G.E. Metzger, Weld. J., 46 (10) (1967), pp.
457s–469s.
68. J.E. Steenbergen and H.R. Thornton, Weld. J., 49
(2) (1970), pp. 61s–68s.
69. N.F. Gittos and M.H. Scott, Weld. J., 60 (6) (1981),
pp. 95s–103s.
70. T. Ma and G. Den Ouden, Int. J. for the Joining of
Materials (Denmark), 11 (3) (1999), pp. 61–67.
71. C. Huang and S. Kou, “Liquation Cracking in
Full-Penetration Aluminum Welds: Binary Al-Cu Welds,”
submitted to Welding Journal.
72. C. Huang and S. Kou, “Liquation Cracking in
Full-Penetration Aluminum Welds: Al-Mg vs. Al-Si
Fillers for Welding Al-Mg-Si Alloys,” submitted to
Welding Journal.
73. Pandat, computer software developed by Compu-
Therm LLC, Madison, WI.
74. M. Katoh and H.W. Kerr, Weld. J., 66 (1987),
p. 360s.
75. H.W. Kerr and M. Katoh, Weld. J., 66 (1987),
p. 251s.
76. M. Miyazaki et al., Weld. J., 69 (1990), p. 362s.
77. C. Huang, G. Cao, and S. Kou, “Liquation Cracking
in Partial-Penetration Aluminum Welds: Assessing
Tendencies to Liquate, Crack and Backfill,” submitted to
Science and Technology of Welding and Joining.
78. C. Huang, S. Kou, and J.R. Purins, Proceedings
of Merton C. Flemings symposium on Solidification
and Materials Processing, ed. R. Abbaschian, H.
Brod, and A. Mortensen (Warrendale, PA: TMS,
2001), p. 229.
79. R.G. Thompson et al. Weld. J., 64 (1985), p. 91s.
80. H. Guo, M.C. Chaturvedi, and N.L. Richards,
Science and Technology of Welding and Joining, 4
(1999), p. 257.
81. W. Yeniscavich, Methods of High-Alloy Weldability
Evaluation, (New York: Welding Research Council,
1970), p. 1.
82. W.R. Apblett and W.S. Pellini, Weld. J., 33 (1954),
p. 83s.
83. M.J. Cieslak, ASM Handbook, Welding, Brazing
and Soldering, vol. 6 (Materials Park, OH: ASM
International, 1993), p. 495.
Sindo Kou is professor and chair of the Department
of Materials Science and Engineering at the
University of Wisconsin.
For more information, contact Sindo Kou, University
of Wisconsin, Department of Materials Science and
Engineering, 1509 University Avenue, Madison,
Wisconsin 53706; (608) 262-0576; fax (608) 262-8648;
e-mail kou@engr.wisc.edu.
JOM • June 2003