WELDABILITY AND CORROSION STUDIES OF AISI 316L

ELECTROPOLISHED TUBING

by

Sunniva R. Collins
Research Metallurgist
and
Peter C. Williams
Chief Scientist
Swagelok

Abstract: This research was performed Although some ferrite appeared

to identify the optimum AISI 316L compositions
for use in welded components in corrosive
service. The weldability of AISI 316L
electropolished tubing showed a strong
correlation between the cosmetic quality of the
resultant weld and the base chemistry, as
calculated using the Hammar and Svensson
equivalents:
Cr eq = Cr + 1.37 Mo + 1.5 Si + 2 Nb + 3 Ti
Ni eq = Ni + 0.31 Mn + 22 C + 14.2 N + Cu
For autogenous welding, a 316L composition
with a Cr eq/Ni eq ≥ 1.45 provided a
cosmetically acceptable weld with minimal slag.
In addition, corrosion resistance of welded 316L
remained relatively high when measured ferrite
in the weld was under 3%, or when Cr eq/Ni eq
≤1.55.
Specimens from seven heats of
commercially available 2.0 in. diam. AISI 316L
electropolished tubing, with Cr eq/Ni eq ratios
ranging from 1.38 to 1.68, were orbitally and
autogenously welded using fixed weld
parameters. Heats with Cr eq/Ni eq ratios above
approximately 1.45 produced acceptable welds,
while those with ratios below 1.45 did not.
Acceptable welds appeared to have a ferritic-
austenitic solidification mode, had minimal slag,
and were very slightly magnetic, indicating
some retained ferrite.
desirable for a cosmetically acceptable slag-free
weld, too much ferrite created preferential
corrosion sites. Welded 316L showed reduced
pitting corrosion resistance when its base
composition exhibited a greater propensity for
the formation of ferrite: that is, when it had a
higher Cr eq/Ni eq ratio.
Research to identify the optimum
chemistries for best corrosion resistance of 316L
after welding was performed, examining
variations in Cr eq/Ni eq, tubing sizes, and
welding parameters. Twenty-one heats of
commercially available AISI 316L
electropolished tubing with Cr eq/Ni eq varying
from 1.2 to 1.8 and sizes from 0.25 in. to 2.0 in.
in diameter were examined. Samples from each
tube lot were orbitally and autogenously welded
with welding parameters varied to achieve an
acceptable weld, as defined by weld bead
thickness and appearance. Welded tube samples
from each lot were evaluated for corrosion
resistance using a standard ASTM
electrochemical (critical pitting temperature) test
method. Only the internal electropolished
surface of the tubing was exposed. Corrosion
resistance decreased considerably for
autogenous welds with ferrite levels above 3%.
The same effect was noted for Cr eq/Ni eq ratios
above 1.55. This research resulted in an
optimized chemistry patent pending.
WELDABILITY AND CORROSION STUDIES OF AISI 316L ELECTROPOLISHED TUBING
by Sunniva R. Collins and Peter C. Williams

×
Figure 1 Acceptable and rejectable weld at approximately 10×

Introduction
AISI 316L is commonly used in many
industries, including the bioprocess or
pharmaceutical industries, in fluid system
applications. In these applications, large systems
of AISI 316L tubing are orbitally/autogenously
welded in place. As a method of construction,
welding is fast and avoids the crevices (and
potential for crevice corrosion) common with
mechanical couplings. Unacceptable weld
characteristics include bead meander, oxidation,
and slag formation. There are also cosmetic
geometric issues, such as weld bead width and
height.
In bioprocess applications, cleaning in
place (CIP) is common. The systems must avoid
corrosion in service, as corrosion products will
contaminate the final product. Bioprocess
applications are usually wet, which introduces
the possibility of rouging and microbially
induced corrosion. Rouge is a contaminant
found in many hot water and steam systems
consisting of various forms of iron oxide; these
iron oxides are a corrosion product that can
affect the purity of the final product. Rouge is
often treated in by shutting down, cleaning and
repassivating the entire system. Microbially
induced corrosion initiates in the heat affected
zones of welds, and in crevices or cracks. MIC
A AF FA FA F
L L L L L
L = liquid = austenite = ferrite
Figure 2 Solidification Modes in AISI 316L
A = austenitic; AF = austenitic-ferritic; FA =
ferritic-austenitic; F = ferritic
occurs when aerobic and anaerobic microbes
create a colony by removing material, forming
deep pits with small pinhole openings on the
interior of the tube. MIC in a system can speed
up corrosive processes drastically; a system
designed to work for 10 years can fail in two or
less if MIC is present.
Weldability of 316L
Compositional restrictions on 316L have
been explored, particularly on residual or tramp
elements.(1) Many of these restrictions have to do
with the slag that may form on welds, or the
redeposited metallic vapors that may potentially
WELDABILITY AND CORROSION STUDIES OF AISI 316L ELECTROPOLISHED TUBING
by Sunniva R. Collins and Peter C. Williams

form corrosion sites. Welds are visually

inspected, and excessive heat coloration or slag
formation are causes for rejection. Welds are
expected to be smooth, straight, flat or slightly
beaded, with an ID width approximately one to
two times the thickness of the tubing.(2) Figure 1
shows examples of acceptable and rejectable
welds.
Minor changes in composition can alter
the way in which 316L solidifies during
welding. Possible solidification modes for 316L
are illustrated in Fig. 2.(3) These modes include
austenitic, austenitic-ferritic, ferritic-austenitic,
and ferritic. The majority of 316L chemistries
will provide welds that are austenitic, austenitic-
ferritic, or ferritic-austenitic. The austenitic weld
will solidify completely to austenite and no
further high-temperature transformations occur.
The austenitic-ferritic weld solidifies as
austenite and δ-ferrite is formed from the melt
retained between the austenite dendrites. In the
ferritic-austenitic weld, ferrite solidifies first and
austenite forms between the ferrite dendrites.
The austenite subsequently grows into the
ferrite, resulting in a significant decrease in the
volume fraction of ferrite. At room temperature,
the weld is substantially austenite, with a small
volume of retained ferrite.
Figure 3 shows secondary electron (SE)
and backscatter electron (BE) images of weld
slag on a rejectable weld. These images indicate
that slag elements are rejected by the
solidification front of the weld, and the BE
contrast indicates that the slag phase and the
weld metal have significantly different chemical
compositions. When the weld slag is analyzed
using energy-dispersive spectrometry (EDS), ×
Figure 3 Weld slag at approximately 100×
Top: secondary electron image. Bottom: backscatter
concentrations of calcium, aluminum, silicon,
electron image
and other elements are found. Table 1 lists the
maximum solubility in both ferrite (bcc) and
solidification is the preferred solidification
austenite (fcc) of some elements commonly
mode.
found in weld slag.(4) In all cases, these
elements have a higher solubility in ferrite than The competition between ferrite-
in austenite. These data indicate that to reduce or promoting elements and austenite-promoting
eliminate slag formation, ferritic-austenitic elements can be described by the chromium and
WELDABILITY AND CORROSION STUDIES OF AISI 316L ELECTROPOLISHED TUBING
by Sunniva R. Collins and Peter C. Williams
Table 1. Maximum solubility of slag
elements in δFe (bcc) and γFe (fcc)
Element Solubility Solubility in
in ferrite, austenite, wt.
wt. % % stainless steel has been found to stimulate pitting
0.024 0.016
Ca
Si 10.9 1.9
Al 30 0.95
Ti 8.7 ~1
Zr 11.7 ~1
nickel equivalents. The chromium equivalent
takes into account those elements that promote
the formation of ferrite, while the nickel
equivalent accounts for those elements that
promote the formation of austenite. Since 316L
is an austenitic stainless steel, there must be
enough chromium present to form the stable
chromic oxide layer (which gives the steel its
stainless characteristics) balanced by enough
austenite forming elements to stabilize the
crystal structure as austenite. There are several
commonly used chromium and nickel
equivalents,(5) but the equations developed by
Hammar and Svensson(6) show an excellent
correlation between composition and
solidification mode, especially for austenitic
stainless steels. The Hammar and Svensson
equivalents are as follows:
Cr eq = Cr + 1.37 Mo + 1.5 Si + 2 Nb + 3 Ti
Ni eq = Ni + 0.31 Mn + 22 C + 14.2 N + Cu
Using these equations, solidification
mode can be predicted by the ratio of Cr eq/Ni
eq.(7) For Cr eq/Ni eq < 1.5, the solidification
mode is austenitic or austenitic-ferritic. From 1.5
≤ Cr eq/Ni eq ≤ 2.0, solidification is ferritic-
austenitic, and for values of Cr eq/Ni eq > 2.0,
solidification is ferritic. Welds acceptable to the
semiconductor industry appear to have a ferritic-
austenitic solidification mode. Acceptable welds
have no slag, and will be very slightly magnetic,
indicating some retained ferrite.
As Cr eq/Ni eq increases, the higher the
propensity for the formation of ferrite. A small
amount of δ-ferrite reduces the tendency for hot
cracking when 316L is welded. (8, 9) However,
the presence of δ-ferrite in welded austenitic
corrosion, (10) and recent specifications indicate a
very low allowable δ-ferrite for use of welded
components in corrosive service. (11) Beyond an
understanding that increasing ferrite translates to
decreasing corrosion resistance, the δ-ferrite
content for which corrosion resistance is
significantly affected has not been well
established.
Welding technique may have some
effect on the solidification mode, since it can
affect the weld metal composition through
dilution and nitrogen pickup. However, for the
relatively small and precise welds common in
autogenous welding for higher purity
applications, the overall effect of solidification
conditions is of secondary importance, and
solidification mode is largely determined by
chemistry.(12) Under practical solidification
conditions, the transition between austenitic-
ferritic and ferritic-austenitic solidification
modes occurs when Cr eq/Ni eq = 1.5 ± 0.03.
Corrosion Resistance of Welded 316L
Pitting corrosion is the most common
failure mode in welded 316L(13-15) , and therefore
the mode of concern. Pitting is a form of
localized attack caused by a breakdown in the
thin passive oxide film that protects stainless
steel from the corrosion process. Pits are
commonly the results of a concentration cell
established by a variation in solution
composition in contact with the alloy. These
variations occur when the solution at a surface
irregularity (such as an inclusion) is different
from that of the bulk solution composition. Once
a pit has formed, it acts as an anode supported
by a large cathodic region. Pits often nucleate at
specific microstructural features in the weld
deposit. In welded 316L, these features include
WELDABILITY AND CORROSION STUDIES OF AISI 316L ELECTROPOLISHED TUBING
by Sunniva R. Collins and Peter C. Williams

Table 2. Weldability Testing: Test Matrix of 2.0-in. diam. 316L Electropolished Tubing, wt %

Heat No. Cr Mo Si Nb Ti Ni Mn C N Cu P S
1 16.8 2.1 0.4 0.011 0.01 10.22 1.82 0.012 0.052 0.3 0.026 0.011
2 16.92 2.06 0.34 0.014 0.01 12.69 1.16 0.024 0.044 0.28 0.031 0.009
3 17.19 2.05 0.36 0.025 0.01 12.38 1.81 0.014 0.051 0.23 0.029 0.007
4 16.88 2.09 0.41 0.015 0.01 12.92 1.25 0.022 0.04 0.41 0.028 0.005
5 17.4 2.11 0.5 0.01 0.01 12.37 1.07 0.018 0.018 0.22 0.026 0.007
6 17.03 2.11 0.41 0.016 0.01 13.05 1.31 0.024 0.041 0.26 0.031 0.005
7 17.54 2.26 0.49 0.012 0.01 12.42 1.09 0.022 0.011 0.23 0.03 0.006

δ-ferrite in an austenite matrix, or
microsegregation of alloying elements in the
dendritic weld microstructure.
The optimum 316L formulation must
be weldable, and maintain as much corrosion
resistance as possible after the material is
welded. With these issues in mind, the present
research was performed to identify the optimum
AISI 316L compositions for use in welded
components in corrosive service.
Experimental Procedure
Weldability Study
Samples from seven heats of
commercially available 2.0 in. diam. AISI 316L
electropolished tubing, with Cr eq/Ni eq ratios
ranging from 1.38 to 1.68, were orbitally and
autogenously welded using fixed weld
parameters. After welding, ferrite was measured,
and the welds were inspected for slag and
appearance.
The compositions of the seven heats are
given in Table 2. These values were determined
versus traceable 316 SS standards, by X-ray
fluorescence (Cr, Mn, Mo, Ni, Si), optical
emission spectroscopy (Nb, P, Ti, Cu), and high
temperature combustion/inert gas fusion (C, S,
N). Once the compositions were known, the Cr
eq, Ni eq, and Cr eq/Ni eq were calculated for
each heat.
Welds were performed using a Hobart
CT 150-DC autogenous welder. The welding
was done in a glove box using a 3/32-in. diam.
thoriated tungsten electrode and a shield gas of
96% Ar-4% H2. The polarity was direct current
electrode negative (DCEN), with a high current
of 86 amps and a maintenance current of 47
amps. Pulse frequency was 6 Hz, with a pulse
width of 50%. Weld speed was 2 rpm, or 6.3
in./min.
The welds were visually examined and
evaluated for presence of slag and cosmetic
appearance, and were ranked accordingly. A
Fischer Ferritscope was used to measure the
maximum ferrite obtained in each weld.
Corrosion Study
Twenty-one heats of commercially
available AISI 316L electropolished tubing with
Cr eq/Ni eq varying from 1.2 to 1.8 and sizes
from 0.25 in. to 2.0 in. in diameter were
examined. Samples from each tube lot were
orbitally and autogenously welded with welding
parameters varied to achieve an acceptable weld,
as defined by weld bead thickness and
appearance. After welding, ferrite was
WELDABILITY AND CORROSION STUDIES OF AISI 316L ELECTROPOLISHED TUBING
by Sunniva R. Collins and Peter C. Williams

Table 3. Corrosion Testing: Test Matrix of 316L Electropolished Tubing, wt %

Heat No. Cr Mo Si Nb Ti Ni Mn C N Cu P S OD, in. Wall

thickness,
in.
8 17.53 2.39 0.53 0.017 0.001 12.46 1.11 0.029 0.023 0.26 0.017 0.006 0.250 0.035
9 17.46 2.11 0.51 0.002 0.001 12.16 0.25 0.014 0.008 0.05 0.025 0.009 0.250 0.035
10 16.29 2.34 0.52 0.003 0.001 12.42 1.36 0.028 0.008 0.05 0.011 0.011 0.250 0.035
11 17.37 2.63 0.53 0.005 0.001 14.10 1.69 0.026 0.038 0.28 0.023 0.006 0.250 0.035
12 16.58 2.32 0.74 0.014 0.002 13.07 0.15 0.014 0.008 0.05 0.017 0.001 0.250 0.035
13 17.93 2.25 0.20 NA NA 13.28 0.26 0.021 0.007 0.05 0.019 0.001 0.250 0.035
14 16.96 2.48 0.10 0.001 0.001 13.27 0.26 0.007 0.001 0.05 0.005 0.001 0.250 0.035
15 17.45 2.17 0.54 0.002 0.001 12.51 0.26 0.022 0.010 0.05 0.015 0.008 0.375 0.035
16 17.05 2.34 0.49 0.003 0.001 12.67 1.32 0.032 0.006 0.05 0.010 0.007 0.375 0.035
17 16.68 2.14 0.31 0.006 0.001 12.20 1.14 0.020 0.021 0.30 0.030 0.007 0.375 0.035
18 16.84 2.13 0.32 0.016 0.001 10.15 1.41 0.014 0.075 0.30 0.025 0.016 0.500 0.049
19 17.54 2.08 0.44 0.001 0.001 12.10 0.29 0.015 0.010 0.05 0.022 0.011 0.500 0.049
20 16.97 2.33 0.55 0.002 0.001 12.48 1.39 0.043 0.010 0.05 0.012 0.007 0.500 0.049
21 17.44 2.61 0.51 0.001 0.001 14.14 1.66 0.032 0.028 0.35 0.019 0.007 0.500 0.049
22 17.44 2.63 0.51 0.001 0.001 14.04 1.67 0.027 0.035 0.28 0.022 0.007 0.500 0.049
23 17.37 2.61 0.64 0.002 0.001 14.01 1.65 0.021 0.032 0.24 0.025 0.007 0.500 0.049
24 16.53 2.63 0.38 0.006 0.001 10.16 1.82 0.022 0.054 0.25 0.012 0.011 1.000 0.065
25 16.62 2.34 0.55 0.007 0.001 12.34 1.37 0.031 0.009 0.05 0.016 0.008 1.000 0.065
26 16.46 2.34 0.56 0.001 0.001 12.61 1.35 0.030 0.008 0.05 0.012 0.008 1.000 0.065
27 16.85 2.13 0.39 0.001 0.004 10.93 1.54 0.024 0.071 0.22 0.017 0.007 2.000 0.065
28 17.41 2.20 0.47 0.006 0.001 12.33 1.05 0.020 0.021 0.22 0.021 0.007 2.000 0.065

measured, and welded tube samples from each
lot were evaluated for corrosion resistance using
a standard ASTM electrochemical (critical
pitting temperature) test method.
The compositions of the twenty-one
heats are given in Table 3, along with the tubing
sizes of each heat. These values were
determined versus traceable 316 SS standards,
by X-ray fluorescence (Cr, Mn, Mo, Ni, Si),
optical emission spectroscopy (Nb, P, Ti, Cu),
and high temperature combustion/inert gas
fusion (C, S, N). Once the compositions were
known, the Cr eq, Ni eq, and Cr eq/Ni eq were
calculated for each heat.
Table 4 shows typical welding
parameters for each of the five tubing sizes.
 WELDABILITY AND CORROSION STUDIES OF AISI 316L ELECTROPOLISHED TUBING
by Sunniva R. Collins and Peter C. Williams
Table 4. Corrosion Testing: Typical Welding
Parameters
Tube Current, Travel, Heat Joules/in.
OD, in. amps in./min. input,
Joules
0.250 20 6.48 288 1334
0.375 21 5.87 439 1494
0.500 29 5.43 842 2322
1.000 42 4.36 3343 4244
2.000 39 3.38 8477 4974
Welding parameters were allowed to change in
order to achieve an acceptable weld. Specimens
from each heat were fabricated from tube stubs
orbitally and autogenously welded using the
Swagelok Weld System. The welding was
performed using ceriated tungsten electrodes and
a shield gas of 100% Ar.
The electrochemical Critical Pitting
Temperature (CPT) test (based on ASTM G
150) (16) to determine resistance to localized
(pitting) corrosion was performed. The CPT test
measures the temperature at which current
density increases rapidly beyond a set limit at a
set electrical potential. A NaCl solution is used,
and the electrical potential is held constant in the
passive region. Starting at a temperature of 0°C,
the temperature is raised slowly at a rate of 1°C
per minute until pitting occurs.
The test solution was 3.56% NaCl made
from reagent grade chemicals and DI (17 MΩ)
water. A temperature controller was employed,
with its probe inserted so that the tip was
touching the test specimen. A glass cooling coil
circled the inside wall of the beaker. A chiller
pumped coolant through the glass coil to provide
cooling. Heating was provided by a heating
mantle sized to fit snugly around the beaker. An
immersible magnetic stirring plate and bar at the
bottom of the beaker was used to reduce
temperature gradients in the cell. The test cell
was a 2 L glass beaker cut to 4.5 in. high and
capped with a polyethylene cover. A three-
electrode set up was used consisting of the test
specimen, an SCE reference electrode inserted in
a Luggin probe, and two graphite rods as counter
electrodes.
Each welded specimen for CPT testing
was made by orbitally and autogenously welding
two 4-in. long tubes. The welded specimens
were cut so that the weld was 0.5 in. from one
end, and the total length of each specimen was
2.0 in. All samples were masked to isolate the
test surface to the inner surface only. One end of
the tube was coated with a non-reactive lacquer
to cover 0.06 in. of the ID, the face on the end of
the tube, and 0.25 in. of the OD. The outside of
the tubing was masked with Plater’s tape,
leaving 0.25 in. uncovered at the unlacquered
end. Electrical contact was made here by
connecting a coated copper wire to the tubing
with a hose clamp.
Approximately one inch of the specimen
was submerged vertically in the solution, with
the weld 0.5 in. from the submerged tube end,
and equilibrated for 10 min. at 0 °C. Following
the initial delay, a potential of 700 mVSCE was
applied to the sample while the temperature was
raised one degree (°C) per minute. Due to a
delay in heating, this rate was not actually
realized until 10 °C. Current was measured
continuously. The test was ended when the
current density exceeded 100 µA/cm2 for 60 s,
which signified the onset of localized corrosion.
The specimen was then removed from the cell
and rinsed in DI water. All specimens were
examined to identify the location of the pitting
and to inspect for under-lacquer corrosion.
Specimens that showed signs of under-lacquer
corrosion were discarded. At least six valid
repetitions were performed for each heat.
The method used differed from ASTM
G 150 in that a stir bar was used in place of
nitrogen gas for agitation. Additionally, several
data points that were <10 °C, were reported as
their exact value, not as <10 °C as indicated in
the standard.
WELDABILITY AND CORROSION STUDIES OF AISI 316L ELECTROPOLISHED TUBING
by Sunniva R. Collins and Peter C. Williams

7 Table 6. Corrosion Testing: Calculated Values of

Corrosion study heats Weldability study heats
6
Ni eq, Cr eq, and Cr eq/Ni eq; and Measured
Maximum % Ferrite in Welds and CPT
5
% Ferrite

4
3 Heat Ni eq Cr eq Cr % CPT,
2 No. eq/Ni Ferrite, ºC,
1 eq max avg
0
8 14.03 21.63 1.54 2.24 22.6
1.35 1.40 1.45 1.50 1.55 1.60 1.65 1.70 1.75
Cr eq/Ni eq 9 12.71 21.12 1.66 3.58 16.3
10 13.62 20.28 1.49 2.23 13.1
Figure 4 % Ferrite vs Cr eq/Ni eq
11 16.02 21.78 1.36 0.23 23.1
Prior to corrosion testing, a Fischer 12 13.59 20.90 1.54 1.73 16.4
Ferritscope was used to measure the maximum
% ferrite obtained in each weld. After corrosion 13 13.97 21.45 1.54 2.39 23.9
testing was completed, the CPT results were 14 13.57 20.51 1.51 1.62 22.3
compared to % ferrite and Cr eq/Ni eq.
15 13.26 21.24 1.60 3.87 20.4
Results and Discussion
16 13.92 21.00 1.51 1.81 12.4
The Cr eq/Ni eq ratio of Hammar and
Svensson appears to be an excellent predictor of 17 13.59 20.09 1.48 0.70 10.2
ferrite formation in autogenously welded 316L. 18 12.26 20.27 1.65 4.53 4.1
Figure 4 shows maximum measured % ferrite
versus Cr eq/Ni eq for the twenty-eight heats in 19 12.71 21.05 1.66 5.15 15.5
both the weldability and corrosion studies. It is 20 14.05 20.99 1.49 1.36 13.9
Table 5. Weldability Testing: Calculated 21 16.11 21.78 1.35 0.21 20.6
Values of Ni eq, Cr eq, and Cr eq/Ni eq; and
22 15.93 21.81 1.37 0.29 20.1
Measured Maximum % Ferrite in Welds
23 15.68 21.91 1.40 0.30 18.2
Heat No. Ni eq Cr eq Cr eq/Ni eq %
24 12.23 20.72 1.69 6.40 7.0
Ferrite,
max 25 13.63 20.67 1.52 2.38 12.3
1 12.09 20.33 1.68 3.91 26 13.85 20.51 1.48 1.21 10.6
2 14.48 20.31 1.40 0.27 27 13.16 20.37 1.55 3.23 13.2
3 14.20 20.62 1.45 0.82 28 13.61 21.14 1.55 3.93 15.9
4 14.77 20.42 1.38 0.00
5 13.57 21.09 1.55 2.07 interesting to note that both sets of data are well
predicted by Cr eq/Ni eq, despite differences in
6 14.83 20.60 1.39 0.15 weld setup (different shielding gases, part
7 13.63 21.43 1.57 3.04 rotation versus weld head rotation, different
rotational speeds, etc.).
 WELDABILITY AND CORROSION STUDIES OF AISI 316L ELECTROPOLISHED TUBING
by Sunniva R. Collins and Peter C. Williams

Figure 5 Visual appearance of welds in 2.0 in. diam. 316L tubing arranged according to Cr eq/Ni eq
From left: Heat 4 (1.38); Heat 6 (1.39); Heat 2 (1.40); Heat 3 (1.45); Heat 5 (1.55); Heat 7 (1.57); Heat 1 (1.68).

30 approximately Cr eq/Ni eq = 1.45. Slag

25 formation is noted on the welds with Cr eq/Ni eq
≤ 1.45.
CPT, degree C

20 slope = -0.77
15
Corrosion Study
10
slope = -2.74
5
Table 6 lists the calculated values of Cr
0
eq, Ni eq, and Cr eq/Ni eq, and measured
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 maximum % ferrite and CPT, for Heats 8
% Ferrite
through 28. Figure 6 shows CPT versus
maximum % ferrite. Figure 7 shows CPT versus
Figure 6 Critical Pitting Temperature vs % Cr eq/Ni eq. The corrosion resistance of welded
Ferrite 316L as measured by CPT falls off dramatically
when % ferrite in the weld exceeds 3% max.
30
This effect can be seen by comparing the slope
25
of the linearized data for ferrite contents below
CPT, degree C

20 slope = -20.9
and above 3%. Above 3% ferrite, the CPT drops
15
off approximately 3.5 times as fast as below 3%
10 slope = -67.2
ferrite. This same break point occurs when Cr
5 eq/Ni eq exceeds 1.55. The drop off in CPT with
0 increasing ferrite content (and increasing Cr
1.35 1.40 1.45 1.50 1.55 1.60 1.65 1.70 1.75
eq/Ni eq) is also noted by the shift downward of
Cr eq/Ni eq the range of the data, as indicated by the dashed
lines.
Figure 7 Critical Pitting Temperature vs Cr eq/Ni eq Conclusions
• Slag forming elements, such as Al, Ca, Si,
Weldability Study Zr, or Ti, have a higher maximum solubility
Table 5 lists the calculated values of Cr in bcc ferrite than in fcc austenite.
eq, Ni eq, and Cr eq/Ni eq, and measured Therefore, a 316L composition that
maximum % ferrite, for Heats 1 through 7. solidifies in the ferritic-austenitic mode will
Figure 5 shows photographs of welds from show a greatly decreased propensity for the
Heats 1 through 7, arranged according to Cr formation of slag on the weld.
eq/Ni eq. From visual inspection, a change in the
morphology of the weld is noted at
WELDABILITY AND CORROSION STUDIES OF AISI 316L ELECTROPOLISHED TUBING
by Sunniva R. Collins and Peter C. Williams
• Solidification mode can be predicted using a
ratio of the Hammar and Svensson
equivalents:
Cr eq = Cr + 1.37 Mo + 1.5 Si + 2 Nb + 3 Ti
Ni eq = Ni + 0.31 Mn + 22 C + 14.2 N + Cu
Acceptable autogenous welds in 316L have
a mainly ferritic-austenitic solidification
mode (Cr eq/Ni eq ≥1.45 and Cr eq/Ni eq ≤
2.0). Acceptable welds have minimal slag,
and are very slightly magnetic, indicating
some retained ferrite.
• The Cr eq/Ni eq ratio based on the Hammar
and Svensson equivalents is an excellent
predictor of maximum ferrite formation in
316L autogenous welds.
• The corrosion resistance of welded 316L as
measured by CPT falls off dramatically
when % ferrite in the weld exceeds 3% max.
This same break point occurs when Cr eq/Ni
eq exceeds 1.55.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by
Swagelok, and involved the participation of over
thirty associates. Their contributions are
acknowledged, with appreciation for their
thorough and careful work. In particular, the
efforts of Brian DeForce, Todd Johns, John
Wetshtein, Clara Swope, Joe Brookover, and
Mike Chom are noted. The results of these
studies form the basis for a patent pending.
References
1. “Specification for 316L Stainless Steel
Bar, Extruded Shapes, and Plate for Components
Used in High Purity Semiconductor
Manufacturing Applications,” SEMI Standard
F20-95, SEMI International, Mountain View,
CA, 1996, 3 pp.
2. “Guideline for Welding Stainless Steel
Tubing for Semiconductor Applications,” SEMI
Standard F3-94, SEMI International, Mountain
View, CA, 1996, 5 pp.
3. N. Suutala, “Solidification of Austenitic
Stainless Steels,” Third Scandinavian
Symposium in Materials Science, 20-21 June
1983, Oulu, Finland; Acta Univ. Oulu, C 26,
Metallurg. 4, 1983, pp. 53-60.
4. Binary Alloy Phase Diagrams, T. B.
Massalski, Ed., American Society for Metals,
Metals Park, OH, 1986.
5. N. Suutala, “Effect of Manganese and
Nitrogen on the Solidification Mode in
Austenitic Stainless Steel Welds,” Met. Trans.
A, Vol. 13, Dec. 1982, pp. 2121-2130.
6. O. Hammar and U. Svensson, in
Solidification and Casting of Metals, The Metals
Society, London, 1979, pp. 401-410.
7. N. Suutala and T. Moisio, “Use of
Chromium and Nickel Equivalents in
Considering Solidification Phenomena in
Austenitic Stainless Steels,” in Solidification
Technology in the Foundry and Casthouse, The
Metals Society, London, 1983, pp. 310-314.
8. J. C. Borland and R. D. Younger, Br.
Weld. J., Vol. 7, 1960, p. 22.
9. F. C. Hull, Proc. Amer. Soc. Testing
Mater., Vol. 60, 1959, p. 667.
10. W. F. Savage, D. J. Duquette,
“Localized Corrosion and Stress Corrosion
Cracking Behavior of Austenitic Stainless Steel
Weldments Containing Retained Ferrite: Annual
Progress Report,” Report COO-2462-6,
Renssalaer Polytechnic Institute, Mar. 1980, 9
pp.
11. R. Morach and P. Ginter, “Influence of
Low δ-Ferrite Content on the Corrosion
Behaviour of Stainless Steels,” Stainless Steel
World, Sep. 1997, pp. 55-59.
12. N. Suutala, “Effect of Solidification
Conditions on the Solidification Mode in
Austenitic Stainless Steel Welds,” Met. Trans.
A, Vol. 14, Feb. 1983, pp. 191-197.
WELDABILITY AND CORROSION STUDIES OF AISI 316L ELECTROPOLISHED TUBING
by Sunniva R. Collins and Peter C. Williams
13. A. Garner, “The Effect of Autogenous
Welding on Chloride Pitting Corrosion in
Austenitic Stainless Steels,” Corrosion, Vol. 35,
Mar. 1979, pp. 108-114.
14. P. I. Marshall and T. G. Gootch, “Effect
of Composition on Corrosion Resistance of
High-Alloy Austenitic Stainless Steel Weld
Metals,” Corrosion, Vol. 49, June 1993, pp. 514-
526.
© 2000 Swagelok Company
15. N. Suutala and M. Kurkela, “Localized
Corrosion Resistance of High Alloy Austenitic
Stainless Steels and Welds,” Proc. Conf.
Stainless Steels ‘84, Goteberg, 3-4 Sept. 1984;
Institute of Metals, London, 1985, pp. 240-247.
16. ASTM G 150, “Standard Test Method
for Electrochemical Critical Pitting Temperature
Testing of Stainless Steel,” in Annual Book of
ASTM Standards, ASTM, West Conshohonken,
PA, 1998.