GTAW Flux-Cored Wires for Open Root SS Welding

1009718

12679136
12679136
GTAW Flux-Cored Wires for Open Root SS Welding

1009718

Technical Update, May 2004

EPRI Project Manager

Greg Frederick

Cosponsors

Ed Gerlach, PP&L

Jim Grewe, OPPD

EPRI-RRAC • 1300 W.T. Harris Blvd., Charlotte, NC 28262 • PO Box 217097, Charlotte, NC 28221 • USA
704.547.6100 • askepri@epri.com • www.epri.com

12679136
DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITIES
THIS DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED BY THE ORGANIZATION(S) NAMED BELOW AS AN ACCOUNT OF
WORK SPONSORED OR COSPONSORED BY THE ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE, INC. (EPRI).
NEITHER EPRI, ANY MEMBER OF EPRI, ANY COSPONSOR, THE ORGANIZATION(S) BELOW, NOR ANY
PERSON ACTING ON BEHALF OF ANY OF THEM:

(A) MAKES ANY WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION WHATSOEVER, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, (I) WITH
RESPECT TO THE USE OF ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEM
DISCLOSED IN THIS DOCUMENT, INCLUDING MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
PURPOSE, OR (II) THAT SUCH USE DOES NOT INFRINGE ON OR INTERFERE WITH PRIVATELY OWNED
RIGHTS, INCLUDING ANY PARTY'S INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, OR (III) THAT THIS DOCUMENT IS
SUITABLE TO ANY PARTICULAR USER'S CIRCUMSTANCE; OR

(B) ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY WHATSOEVER (INCLUDING
ANY CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF EPRI OR ANY EPRI REPRESENTATIVE HAS BEEN ADVISED
OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES) RESULTING FROM YOUR SELECTION OR USE OF THIS
DOCUMENT OR ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN
THIS DOCUMENT.

ORGANIZATION(S) THAT PREPARED THIS DOCUMENT

EPRI

This is an EPRI Technical Update report. A Technical Update report is intended as an informal report of
continuing research, a meeting, or a topical study. It is not a final EPRI technical report.

ORDERING INFORMATION
Requests for copies of this report should be directed to EPRI Orders and Conferences, 1355 Willow
Way, Suite 278, Concord, CA 94520. Toll-free number: 800.313.3774, press 2, or internally x5379;
voice: 925.609.9169; fax: 925.609.1310.

Electric Power Research Institute and EPRI are registered service marks of the Electric Power
Research Institute, Inc. EPRI. ELECTRIFY THE WORLD is a service mark of the Electric Power
Research Institute, Inc.

Copyright © 2004 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved

12679136
 CITATIONS
This document was prepared by
EPRI
1300 W.T. Harris Blvd
Charlotte, NC 28262
Principal Investigator or Author
G. Frederick
Omaha Public Power District
P.O.Box 550
Fort Calhoun, NE 68023
Principal Investigator or Author
J. Grewe

PPL Susquehanna, LLC

769 Salem Blvd.
Berwick, PA 18603

Principal Investigator or Author

E. Gerlach

This document describes research sponsored by EPRI.

The publication is a corporate document that should be cited in the literature in the following
manner:
GTAW Flux-Cored Wires for Open Root SS Welding, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2004. 1009718.

12679136 iii
12679136 iv
 ABSTRACT
Gas Tungsten Arc Welding (GTAW) procedures for stainless steel open root welding
applications typically require purging or shielding with an inert gas (i.e. argon), during the root
and subsequent hot passes, to assist with wetting and to prevent atmospheric contamination of
the exposed surface. Lack of adequate purging or welding without a purge, typically results in
weld defects both on the surface and within the weld deposit, such as porosity and poor bead
profile. Poor root weld profile such as lack-of–fusion (LOF), undercut and underfill (concave
bead profile), surface contamination (i.e sugaring, burn through, oxidation) and porosity can
have detrimental effects on the material properties and corrosion resistance.
In many cases, inert gas purging is impractical due to complexity of system design, access
limitations and increased procedure costs and schedule. To address open root GTAW welding
without an inert gas purge, EPRI-RRAC has evaluated various welding filler materials (i.e. flux-
cored, fluxed wires) and fluxing agents that assist or eliminate the need for purging, while
maintaining acceptable weld quality.
The welding filler materials and products evaluated in this study are used with the manual
GTAW process and are intended to eliminate the ID purge requirements typical of open root
stainless steel welding applications. These products are typically used for the root pass weld
only, subsequent weld passes including the hot pass are applied with standard solid wire products
of similar chemistry. The products do not eliminate the need for shielding gas typical of the
GTAW process.
The flux constituents provide various functions for the arc welding processes, including gas and
slag formers for protection from the atmosphere and bead shaping, arc stabilizers for reduced
spatter and penetration, deoxidizers and scavengers for decreasing impurities in the weld puddle
and alloying elements for adjusting the deposited chemistry. For the products evaluated in this
study the fluxes are primarily used to protect the surface from atmospheric contamination and are
not used to alloy the weld deposit. The welding wire (i.e. sheath or core-wire) is typically
selected to meet the alloy specification of the weld joint and to match the remainder of the weld
deposit.
Three concerns of using a welding product with a flux with the GTAW process were identified:
ƒ Most fluxing products have some level of halogen (i.e. fluorides, chlorides) in the flux
constituents and residuals in the slag remain in the system if slag is not completely
removed. Pipe welding applications in the power industry, typically do not allow access
for subsequent slag removal.
ƒ Fluxed welding wires (flux-cored and fluxed wires) for GTAW require a keyhole welding
technique to maintain a constant flow of flux to the ID surface of the root weld. Keyhole
welding requires additional welder skill and training.
ƒ Flux-cored wires and fluxed wires are not recognized by AWS, requiring the filler
material to be qualified and maintained on site.

12679136 v
The purpose of this project was to evaluate the weldability and optimum welding parameters to
successfully implement the use of flux cored and coated GTAW filler materials for root pass
welding of austenitic stainless steel without back purging. The project was also aimed at
providing verification that the material properties were not compromised by eliminating the
conventional argon purge, and providing information to assist with material procurement.
To establish the acceptability of these welding products, weld test specimens were fabricated and
subjected to a series of tests to verify the minimum mechanical and corrosion resistance
properties are met. This report includes the Welding Specification and Guidelines and results of
the test matrix including chemistry and metallographic analyses, corrosion tests and mechanical
testing.
In summary, the flux type GTAW welding rods successfully deposited a root pass and
subsequent hot pass without a back purge. The welds were free of surface sugaring and porosity,
with the single or split hot pass technique. The welding rods provide acceptable mechanical and
corrosion properties per ASTM and ASME requirement. The flux-type GTAW product requires
an experienced welder and proper training/practice to achieve the required quality and test
results. Due to the experience level of the welder required and the potential halogen content of
the slag (based on individual utility requirements), use of the flux-type GTAW rods should be
evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

12679136 vi
 CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................1-1
Welding Products.................................................................................................... 1-1

2 MATERIAL AND EQUIPEMENT ........................................................2-1

Welding Consumables ............................................................................................ 2-1
Base Material .......................................................................................................... 2-2
Welding Equipment................................................................................................. 2-2

3 WELDING PROCESS ........................................................................3-1

Welding Specifications ...................................................................................... 3-1
Welding Guidelines............................................................................................ 3-4

4 MATERIAL PROPERTY VERIFICATION ..........................................4-1

Material Acceptance Criteria................................................................................... 4-1
Chemistry Analysis ............................................................................................ 4-2
Delta Ferrite Determination ............................................................................... 4-5
Mechanical Properties ....................................................................................... 4-7
Corrosion Analyses ......................................................................................... 4-14
Flux - Slag Analysis ......................................................................................... 4-24

5 RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................5-1

12679136 vii
12679136 viii
1 INTRODUCTION
Gas Tungsten Arc Welding (GTAW) procedures for stainless steel open root welding
applications typically require purging or shielding with an inert gas (i.e. argon), during the root
and subsequent hot passes, to assist with wetting and to prevent atmospheric contamination of
the exposed surface. Lack of adequate purging or welding without a purge, typically results in
weld defects both on the surface and within the weld deposit, such as porosity and poor bead
profile. Poor root weld profile such as lack-of–fusion (LOF), undercut and underfill (concave
bead profile), surface contamination (i.e sugaring, burn through, oxidation) and porosity can
have detrimental effects on the material properties and corrosion resistance.
In many cases, inert gas purging is impractical due to complexity of system design, access
limitations and increased procedure costs and schedule. To address open root GTAW welding
without an inert gas purge, EPRI-RRAC has evaluated various welding filler materials (i.e. flux-
cored, fluxed wires) and fluxing agents that assist or eliminate the need for purging, while
maintaining acceptable weld quality.

Welding Products
The welding filler materials and products evaluated in this study are used with the manual
GTAW process and are intended to eliminate the ID purge requirements typical of open root
stainless steel welding applications. These products are typically used for the root pass weld
only, subsequent weld passes including the hot pass are applied with standard solid wire products
of similar chemistry. The products do not eliminate the need for shielding gas typical of the
GTAW process.
The flux constituents provide various functions for the arc welding processes, including gas and
slag formers for protection from the atmosphere and bead shaping, arc stabilizers for reduced
spatter and penetration, deoxidizers and scavengers for decreasing impurities in the weld puddle
and alloying elements for adjusting the deposited chemistry. For the GTAW process the fluxes
are primarily used to protect the surface from atmospheric contamination and are not used to
alloy the weld deposit. The welding wire (i.e. sheath or core-wire) is typically selected to meet
the alloy specification of the weld joint and to match the remainder of the weld deposit.
Three concerns of using a welding product with a flux with the GTAW process were identified:
ƒ Most fluxing products have some level of halogen (i.e. fluorides, chlorides) in the flux
constituents and residuals in the slag remain in the system if slag is not completely
removed. Pipe welding applications in the power industry, typically do not allow access
for subsequent slag removal.
ƒ Fluxed welding wires (flux-cored and fluxed wires) for GTAW require a keyhole welding
technique to maintain a constant flow of flux to the ID surface of the root weld. Keyhole
welding requires additional welder skill and training.

12679136 1-1
 ƒ Flux-cored wires and fluxed wires are not recognized by AWS, requiring the filler
material to be qualified and maintained on site.

The purpose of this project was to evaluate the weldability and optimum welding parameters to
successfully implement the use of flux cored and coated GTAW filler materials for root pass
welding of austenitic stainless steel without back purging. The project was also aimed at
providing verification that the material properties were not compromised by eliminating the
conventional argon purge, and providing information to assist with material procurement.
To establish the acceptability of these welding products, weld test specimens were fabricated and
subjected to a series of tests to verify the minimum mechanical and corrosion resistance
properties are met. This report includes the Welding Specification and Guidelines and results of
the test matrix including chemistry and metallographic analyses, corrosion tests and mechanical
testing.

12679136 1-2
2 MATERIAL AND EQUIPEMENT
The EPRI RRAC evaluated flux cored and flux coated GTAW welding rods to provide welding
parameters and specification, and to establish mechanical and corrosion properties. This section
introduces the Welding Consumables evaluated and the Welding Equipment used the study.

Welding Consumables
Three GTAW filler materials were selected for evaluation; TGX, Stain Plus and FMI welding
rods (Table 2-1). These electrodes were designed specifically for root welding applications and
are not intended for use on the hot pass and fill pass welds.
The Kobelco TGX flux-cored GTAW consumable electrode consists of a tubular alloyed sheath,
with gas and slag forming compounds inside the sheath. The sheath material is similar to the
actual chemistry designation with additional alloying elements added to the flux inside the
sheath. TGX is manufactured in a 3/32-inch diameter and comes in 36-inch lengths.
The FMI and Stain-Plus stainless steel flux coated GTAW consumable electrodes consist of an
alloyed solid rod, coated with a gas and slag forming compound on the outer surface. The
electrodes are manufactured in a 3/32-inch diameter and come in a 36-inch (Stain Plus) and 39-
in. (FMI) lengths.
The product heat analysis for the welding materials evaluated in this program is shown in Table
2-2.

Table 2-1. Flux-cored and Flux coated GTAW Consumables.

Supplier X-Ergon Kobe, Koballoy Division Filler Metal Incorporated
(FMI)
Product Type Flux-coated GTAW wire Flux-cored GTAW (manual Flux-coated GTAW
wire) (manual wire)
Trade Name 126-T StainPlus, ER316L TGX Wire FMI
Available Type 316L (core wire) Type 308L, 309L, 316L and Type 308L
Material Types 347 chemistries
AWS/ASME Core wire meets SFA5.9-93, TGX309L, AWS R309LT1-5 ER 308L FC
Specification ER316L AWS A5.22, ASME SFA5.22
TGX308L, AWS R308LT1-5
AWS A5.22, ASME SFA5.22
Available 3/32-in (2.2-mm) by 36-in. 3/32-in (2.2-mm) by 36-in. 1/8-in (2.4-mm) by 39-in.
Diameters/Length length length length
Applications Root Weld, GTAW Process Root Weld, GTAW Process Root Weld, GTAW
Process

12679136 2-1
Table 2-2. Product Heat Chemistry for Flux-cored and Flux coated electrodes.

Mfg. Type Heat No. C Si Mn P S Cu Ni Cr Mo

Kobelco TGX-308L B7B2015 0.02 0.75 1.44 0.018 0.004 0.08 10.05 19.59 0.06
TGX-308L B8J2035 0.02 0.70 1.56 0.020 0.007 0.06 10.33 19.87 0.05
TGX-308L B3F701 0.02 0.73 1.66 0.021 0.006 0.06 10.43 19.57 0.04
TGX-309L B8B9015 0.02 0.66 1.52 0.023 0.006 0.04 12.87 23.99 0.04
TGX-309L B3A921 0.02 0.79 1.57 0.021 0.008 0.06 13.71 24.42 0.03
TGX-316L B3A912 0.02 0.79 1.39 0.020 0.010 0.09 11.93 18.29 2.42
Filler Metal ER-308L FC R9709056 0.02 0.35 2.11 0.018 0.003 0.00 9.93 19.84 0.00
Inc.
Stain Plus 126T Stain
Plus 316L

Base Material
Initial welder familiarization studies were performed on 3/8-in. and 1/2-in. thick SA-240 Type
304 stainless steel plate. Additional welding parameter evaluation and development work was
performed on 5 and 6-inch Schedule 40, SA-312 Type 304L stainless steel pipe. The pipe
chemical analysis is shown in Table 2-3.

Table 2-3. Typical Chemical Analysis of SA-312, Type 304L Pipe

Type Heat No. C Si Mn P S Cu Ni Cr Mo Co
304L 161693 .018 .51 1.80 .033 .015 0.27 8.98 18.16 0.28 0.18

Welding Equipment
Welding development was performed exclusively with manual GTAW process utilizing standard
constant current welding power supplies. A Hobart Cyber-TIG (Figure 2-4) and a Miller
Aerowave (Figure 2-5) power supply were utilized during the coarse of the project.
The flux type GTAW welding rods are not equipment dependant products. Standard constant
current (CC) power supplies and GTAW welding torches are utilized with these consumables.

12679136 2-2
Figure 2-4. Hobart Cyber-TIG 350 Power Supply

Figure 2-5. Miller Aerowave Power Supply.

12679136 2-3
12679136 2-4
3 WELDING PROCESS
The development of welding parameters and techniques, to allow implementation of the GTAW
process for open root process, was one of the key objectives of this program. The root pass must
exhibit good shape and tie-in (fusion) with an internal surface free of oxides (sugaring) and
porosity. The integrity of the root surface must also be maintained during the subsequent hot
passes.
Extensive testing was performed on both plate and pipe coupons, first evaluating the parameters
provided by the weld electrode manufacturers and then with modifications developed by EPRI
RRAC and utility personnel. The results of this evaluation and development effort were used to
establish the Welding Specifications and Welding Guidelines for SS open root welding without a
back purge.

Welding Specifications
Welding parameter evaluations were performed with the flux-assisted filler materials on Type
304L pipe and plate coupons. The objective of the parameter development phase was to
establish welding parameters and techniques that yield defect free (i.e. sugar and porosity) and
acceptable ID reinforcement geometry (i.e. undercut and suck-back) and to hot pass welding
parameters and techniques that maintained ID surface integrity (i.e. sugaring) with standard solid
stainless steel 308L filler material.
Since most welders are unfamiliar with the keyhole welding technique and flux-assisted filler
products, training or practice time are necessary. Inconsistent weld appearance and overall poor
weld quality was typical in the initial weld trials. An experienced welder should be able to
produce acceptable root passes around the full diameter of the pipe in all positions after three to
four days of becoming familiar with filler rod manipulation and keyhole welding techniques.
Availability of welders familiar with the flux assisted filler materials should be considered before
committing to open root welding application without a purge.
The welding specification for the flux-cored and flux-coated filler materials was similar in most
cases. Both types used a keyhole technique for the root pass, although when excessive mismatch
or root gap was present, a non-keyhole technique could be utilized with the flux-coated filler
materials. When a non-keyhole technique is used the filler rod is held tight in the gap with a
short arc length, and the arc is worked side to side (walking the cup). This method is effective
with excessive pipe mismatch but results in a thin root pass deposit. Care must be taken when
applying the hot pass, if the root thickness is not substantial.

The optimal welding parameters and joint geometry specifications established during the initial
welding trials are listed in Table 3-1.

12679136 3-1
Table 3-1. Basic Welding Parameters for Flux-assisted SS filler materials.
Technique Gas Flow Shielding Shielding Tungsten Current/ Volts Travel
rates cfh Gas Gas Cup stick-out Polarity Speed
(l/min) length (ipm)
Flux-cored Keyhole 30-35 Argon Size #4 3/32-in. to 1/8- 85 –90 12 1.5–2.0
Root Pass (21-24) in.
Straight
Flux-coated Keyhole or 30-35 Argon Size #4 3/32-in. to 1/8- 85 –90 12 3.0 to
Root Pass Standard (21-24) in. 3.5
Straight
Hot Pass Standard, 30-35 Argon Size #5 90 –100 12 2.5-3.0
split pass (21-24)
Straight

12679136 3-2
 Bevel (1) (2) Root Gap (3) Land (4) (7) Joint Thickness Mismatch
(degrees) (inch) (inch) Geometry (6) (8)
(5)
35-40 1/16 to 1/8-in. 0-1/16 Standard Unlimited* .050-in.
(3/32-in. (feathered open root V-
(70-included)
optimal) edge optimal) Groove
* - Thickness is based on equipment accessibility into the joint geometry.

Figure 3-1. Weld joint geometry for Flux assisted SS Filler Materials.

12679136 3-3
Welding Guidelines
The manufacturers of the flux assisted filler materials recommend the use of a keyhole welding
technique, which allows the flow of the molten flux to the backside of the weld (Figure 3-2),
similar to the SMAW process. Without the keyhole technique the amount of slag reaching the
backside would be insufficient to appropriately shield the exposed molten weld metal resulting in
surface oxidation and poor wet out. A keyhole welding technique is commonly used for
autogenous welding applications and automated processes, with a square butt weld joint
configuration, but is not common for manual welding with a flux assisted filler material. A
skilled welder and additional training will be required to perform acceptable SS root welds
without a backing purge.

Welding Direction

Weld Metal
.020-.040-inch

Key-hole Molten Pool

Figure 3-2. Keyhole Welding Method for Flux Cored Filler Material

The welding technique for the flux-assisted electrodes is significantly different than the standard
solid wire techniques. A summary of guidelines established from manufacturers
recommendations, technique development during the coarse of this project, and from utility
feedback is listed below. It is recommended that additional training and mockup welds be
performed prior to implementation. Basic weld preparation is shown in Figure 3-1.

Fit up and Tack Welding

ƒ Root gap should be as wide as or slightly larger than the electrode diameter. A root gap of
1/16-in to 1/8-in. is acceptable and 3/32-in. was considered optimal.
• A less than optimal weld root gap resulted in insufficient flux transfer to the back
of the root pass resulting in ID sugaring and lack of penetration and ID
reinforcement.
• A greater than optimal root gap, resulted in a decreased root thickness. A thinner
root pass could potentially cause hot pass problems (i.e. ID sugaring, blow
through).
• Root Land: 0 to 1/16-in. land. A feathered edge (no land) was optimal.
ƒ The pipe should be laid out in segments such that

12679136 3-4
 • Roots welds are continuous from tack to tack.
• The welding current is highest in the overhead position and lower in the vertical
position.
• The last weld root connection should be at the 1:00 to 2:00 position for better
weld root quality. Stops and starts should not be at the 12:00 and 6:00 positions.
ƒ Tacks should be large enough to assure the proper gap is maintained and is not allowed to
close up during the welding process.
ƒ Tack welds should be made with solid filler material.

Root Welding Technique

ƒ The initial root pass should be started on a tack.
ƒ The flux-assisted filler should be used for root pass welding only and with a keyhole
technique.
• Although not recommended a non-keyhole technique was found to be acceptable
with the flux-coated filler products, with excessive pipe misalignment or root gap.
• When a non-keyhole technique is used the filler rod is held tight in the gap with a
short arc length, and the arc is worked side to side (walking the cup).
• The non-keyhole technique with the excessive gap typically results in a thin root
pass thickness. Care must be taken when applying the hot pass to maintain ID
surface integrity.
ƒ Root pass welding must be performed in the vertical up position. Downhill welding
inhibits the formation of the keyhole and allows slag to form ahead of the molten weld
bead leading to lack of penetration.
ƒ Travel speed will be approximately 1.5 to 2 ipm for flux-cored and slightly faster (3.0 to
3.5 ipm ) with the flux-coated welding rods. The actual travel speed is difficult to
maintain with the manual process and the welder will be required to maintain the
appropriate puddle size and keyhole.
ƒ The keyhole size and shape directly affects the quality of the root pass.
• Maintain a sufficient and consistent molten pool size when dipping the filler rod
into the keyhole.
• Maintain a tight arc while dipping the weld filler rod into the keyhole. The arc
length should be as short as possible, with an aim of .080 to .120-inch. This can
be achieved through proper electrode stick-out and contacting the nozzle/cup on
in the groove faces/walls (walking the cup).
• Keep rod in leading edge of puddle while continually feeding.

12679136 3-5
 • Use a slight oscillation to maintain the keyhole with constant dipping of the filler
rod (every 1-2 sec.).
• The keyhole must be large enough such that the slag can be continuously flow to
the back side of the root, but small enough to maintain a proper shape on the
inside of the pipe.
• The filler rod must be manipulated quickly or filler metal will freeze without
penetrating to the ID.
• Avoid penetrating the backside of the root with the filler material.
ƒ When cutting off the arc in the middle of welding, the crater should be moved back and
toward the sidewall in order to avoid crater defects.
ƒ When restarting an arc, the arc should be struck approximately 3/8” from the end of the
stop, on the existing bead, while the previous bead is still hot and without removing any
slag. The slag must not be removed from the root side of the weld as this will lead to
oxidation upon re-arcing.
ƒ When root pass welding reaches a tack weld, the tack must be removed by grinding prior
to restarting the welding operation.
ƒ The proper weld puddle will appear orange as opposed to a clear puddle characteristic of
GTAW welding.
• Torch angle 10-20-degrees max.
• Cleaning: Do not remove slag until the entire root pass is complete. Wire brush
and chip prior to subsequent passes (hot pass).

Hot Pass Welding Technique

ƒ Travel speed increased to 2.5 to 3.0-ipm compared to root pass.
ƒ Wire brush between at stops and starts, at the toe of the root weld bead and between the
weld beads if a split hot pass is utilized. Do not remove slag from ID surface.
o If scale or slag is not removed completely with a wire brush, power wire brush or
grind to remove.
o The flux-coated products tend to have a more tenacious slag coverage and scale
residue and may require a power brush prior to subsequent weld passes.
ƒ Larger cup size, #5 compared to root pass.
ƒ Amperage increased 5-10 amps compared to root weld.
ƒ Split pass reduced the potential for burn through and ID sugaring, and may be beneficial
for less skilled welders. Figure 3-3 illustrates poor ID surface quality resulting from
poorly applied single hot pass.

12679136 3-6
 ƒ A conventional single hot pass can be performed by a skilled welder with acceptable
results
• Require a split hot pass to eliminate sugaring of the ID surface (Figure 3-4) and to
reduce potential blow through.
• Split hot pass incorporates two hot passes with the arc (weld heat) focused on the
sidewall (bevel face) of the weld joint.
• The first hot pass is deposited on the bevel face and across the midpoint of the
root weld centerline. The second hot pass is focused on the opposite sidewall and
overlapped the first hot pass.
ƒ When the root pass is applied with a feathered edge (no land) thicker root reinforcement
typically resulted. A single hot pass could be applied over the thicker root pass without
jeopardizing the ID surface integrity (Figure 3-5).

Figure 3-3. Weld Root Pass with Gross Sugaring poor welding technique.

Figure 3-4. Weld Root Pass with Split Hot Pass Technique. ID surface (left), split hot pass surface

12679136 3-7
(right).

Figure 3-5. Weld Root id Surface with Single Hot Pass Utilizing the Feather Edge Weld Preparation

12679136 3-8
4 MATERIAL PROPERTY VERIFICATION
Flux-coated and flux-cored GTAW wires are not currently recognized by the American Welding
Society (AWS), thus requiring Material and Procedural Qualifications to be performed prior to
ASME applications. To assess the deposited weld material for ASME applications a series of
test specimens were fabricated and evaluated to verify the flux material did not adversely affect
the weld chemistry and mechanical properties. This section is divided into three categories;
Material Acceptance Criteria, Mechanical Properties and Corrosion Evaluation.

Material Acceptance Criteria

The filler materials evaluated in this program were qualified per ASME Section II, Part C (SFA-
5.22), ASME Section III, NB-2430 and Reg. Guide 1.31 specifications for deposited weld metal
chemistry and delta ferrite number (FN) measurements.
SFA5.22, Table 4, specifies the required tests for each electrode classification (R3XXT1-X),
although since the flux-cored and fluxed electrodes are only used for the root pass the list was
reduced to chemical analysis and ferrite number (FN) determination in this section. Additional
mechanical tests were performed in the Mechanical Properties Section, to assure material
properties were not diminished. The acceptance criteria and procurement requirements are based
off the following Code references:
ASME Section II, Part C (latest edition)
ƒ Mechanical Properties (SFA-5.22, Table 4)
ƒ Chemistry Composition Requirements (SFA-5.22, Table 1 and Figure 1)
ƒ Procurement Specification
ƒ Ferrite Number (FN) Determination

ASME Section III, NB2430 (1989 edition)

ƒ Chemistry evaluation per NB-2432.2 and Table NB-2432.2(a)-1
ƒ Ferrite Number Determination

Regulatory Guide 1.31 Control of Ferrite Content in Stainless Steel Weld Metal (Rev. 3, April
1978)
ƒ Ferrite Number between 5-20 in undiluted weld metal.
ƒ AWS A5.4, Specification for Corrosion-Resisting Chromium and Chromium-Nickel
Steel Covered Welding Electrodes.
ƒ AWS A4.2-74, Procedures for Calibrating Magnetic Instruments to Measure the Delta-
Ferrite Content of Austenitic Stainless Steel Weld Metal.

12679136 4-1
Chemistry Analysis
Chemistry pads (Table 4-1) per ASME Section II, SFA5.22, 8.3 Weld Pad and Figure 1, ‘Pads
for Chemical Analysis of Undiluted Weld Metal’ were performed. The weld specifications met
the requirements of SFA5.22, A6.9 to allow FN to be measured on the same weld pad. Welding
data and parameters are recorded in Table 4-2 for the overlay specimens. Welding specification
for the chemistry pads include:
Preheat: Not less than 60F
Cleaning: Interpass slag removal required
Shielding Medium: 100% Argon (SFA5.22, Table 2)
Base Material: Type 304L
Weld Process: GTAW (manual)
Weld position: Flat
Weld Buildup: Minimum 4 layers and 3/8-in thickness
Weld Technique: Alternating weld direction between weld passes. Stringer beads last two layers.
Interpass Temperature: Maximum 300F for last two layers
Quenching: Interpass quenching allowed 20 sec. after welding is complete. Last pass must air
cool below 800F before quenching.
Dimensions: 3-in. long by 2-in. wide (minimum .75-in. wide, top layer)
Results of the chemistry analyses is to comply with Table 1 of ASME B&PV Code, Section II,
Part C, latest edition, SFA-5.22, under the corresponding AWS classification for welding rod.

Table 4-1. Overlay Weld Specimens and Test Matrix for GTAW Flux Type Rods
Identification Weld Configuration Weld Material Tests
309–TGX-03 1G, 1/2-in. Type 304L Plate, 3/32-in. TGX 309L Chem. Pad
9 layers CX
308–TGX-03 1G, 1/2-in. Type 304L Plate 3/32-in. TGX 308L Chem. Pad
9 layers CX
316–TGX-03 1G, 1/2-in. Type 304L Plate 3/32-in. TGX 316L Chem. Pad
9 layers CX
316-SP-03 1G, 1/2-in. Type 304L Plate 3/32-in. Stain Plus 316L Chem. Pad
9 layers CX
GPUN-308-99 1G, 1/2-in. Type 304L Plate 3/32-in. TGX 308L Chem. Pad
Min. 4 layers, 3/8-in. min. CX
GPUN-309-99 1G, 1/2-in. Type 304L Plate 3/32-in. TGX 309L Chem. Pad
Min. 4 layers, 3/8-in. min. CX
316L Stain Plus 1G, BOP, Type 304L Plate 3/32-in. Stain Plus 316L Slag analyses
308L TGX 1G, BOP, Type 304L Plate 3/32-in. TGX 308L Slag analyses
308L FMI Slag analyses

12679136 4-2
Table 4-2. Welding Parameters for chemistry pads
Identification Weld Filler/ Amps Volts Shielding Preheat Layers Travel Weld
Diameter Speed Technique
308-TGX-03 TGX 308L 110 21-23 100% 70F 9 layers Manual Stringer and
3/32-in. Argon weave
309-TGX-03 TGX 309L 147 19 100% 70F 9 layers Manual Stringer and
3/32-in. Argon weave
316-TGX-03 TGX 316L --- --- 100% 70F 9 layers Manual Stringer and
3/32-in. Argon weave
316-SP-03 StainPlus316L 110 23 100% 70F 9 layers Manual Stringer and
3/32-in. Argon weave
GPUN-308-99 TGX308L 80-90 --- 100% 60F Min. 4 Manual Stringer and
3/32-in. Argon layers, 3/8- weave
in. min.
GPUN-309-99 TGX309L 80-90 --- 100% 60F Min. 4 Manual Stringer and
3/32-in. Argon layers, 3/8- weave
in. min.

Figure 4-1. Typical Overlay Buildup for Chemistry and Ferrite evaluation, TGX 308L Test Plate
(left) and Stain Plus 316L Test Plate (right).

Each weld pad was ground to remove weld ripple (solidification lines), and not to exceed the
minimum requirement for FN determination and chemical analyses. The prepared weld pads
were analyzed to determine if the chemistry met specification for R308LT1-5, R309LT1-5 and
R316LT1-5 per SFA-5.22, Table 1. Testing methods met ASTM Standard E 1086-94 for
spectrographic analysis. Chemistry analyses for the welding rods are recorded in Table 4-3, 4-4
and 4-5 for R308LT1-5, R309LT1-5 and R316LT1-5, respectively.

12679136 4-3
All chemistries for the 308L and 316L weld deposits were within required composition ranges
specified in each table. One of the 309L (309-TGX-03) weld deposits (Table 4-4) had a
Chromium (Cr) level slightly higher than the acceptable range.

Table 4-3. Chemical Analyses of Undiluted Weld Metal (SFA-5.22, Table 1) for R308LT1-5.
Identification C Cr Ni Mo Mn Si P S Cu FN
AWS UNS No. 0.03 18.0- 9.0- 0.5 0.5- 1.2 0.04 0.03 0.5 ---
Classification W30835 21.0 11.0 2.5
R308LT1-5
TGX 308L Heat No. 0.02 19.59 10.05 0.06 1.44 0.75 0.018 0.004 0.08
B7B2015
TGX 308L 308-TGX-03B 0.02 20.21 10.35 0.03 1.57 NM 0.003 0.001 NM
TGX 308L Heat No. 0.02 19.87 10.33 0.05 1.56 0.70 0.020 0.007 0.06
B8J2035 (2)
TGX 308L GPUN 308-99 0.01 20.29 10.26 0.04 1.58 0.71 0.020 0.008 0.06 9.7 (3)
(2) 9 7.3 (4)
8-10 (5)
TGX 308L B3F701 (1) 0.02 19.57 10.43 0.04 1.66 0.73 0.021 0.006 0.06
(certs)
TGX 308L 308-TGX-03 (1) 0.01 20.3 10.6 0.01 1.53 0.77 0.023 0.012 0.06 9.4 (3)
FMI 308L Heat No. 0.02 19.84 9.93 0.0 2.11 0.35 0.018 0.003 0.0 8.1 (5)
(certs) R9709056
FMI 308L 308-FMI-99
(1) Dedication heat from OPPD. (2) Dedicated heat from GPUN. (3) Ferrite Scope. (4) Magna Gage. (5) FN from Chemistry NB2433.1.

Table 4-4. Chemical Analyses of Undiluted Weld Metal (SFA-5.22, Table 1) for R309LT1-5.
Identification C Cr Ni Mo Mn Si P S Cu FN
AWS UNS No. 0.03 22.0- 12.0- 0.5 0.5- 1.2 0.04 0.03 0.5 ---
Classification W30935 25.0 14.0 2.5
R309LT1-5
TGX 309L Heat No. 0.02 23.99 12.87 0.04 1.52 0.66 0.023 0.006 0.04
(certs) B8B9015 (2)
TGX 309L GPUN 309-99 0.014 24.22 12.70 0.04 1.56 0.82 0.020 0.008 0.08 23-24 (5)
(2) 18-20 (6)

TGX 309L Heat No. 0.01 24.42 13.71 0.03 1.57 0.79 0.021 0.008 0.06
(certs) B3A921 (1)
TGX 309L 309-TGX-03 0.02 25.4 13.3 <.002 1.5 0.76 0.024 0.012 0.06 22.8 (4)
(1) (3)
(1) Dedication heat from OPPD. (2) Dedicated heat from GPUN. (3) Cr content above specification. (4) Ferrite Scope. (5) Magna Gage. (6) FN
from Chemistry NB2433.1.

12679136 4-4
Table 4-5. Chemical Analyses of Undiluted Weld Metal (SFA-5.22, Table 1) for R316LT1-5.
Identification C Cr Ni Mo Mn Si P S Cu FN
(WRC)
AWS UNS No. 0.03 17.0- 11.0- 2.0- 0.5- 1.2 0.04 0.03 0.5 ---
Classification W31635 20.0 14.0 3.0 2.5
R316LT1-5
Stain-Plus 316-SP-03 0.01 19.52 11.94 2.14 1.15 NM 0.013 <.001 --- ---
316L
TGX 316L Heat No. 0.02 18.29 11.93 2.42 1.39 0.79 0.020 0.010 0.09 ---
(certs) B3A912 (1)
TGX 316L 316-TGX-03 .01 18.5 12.7 2.31 1.48 0.90 0.024 0.012 0.05 8.0 (3)
(1)
(1) Dedication heat from OPPD. (2) Dedication heat from South Carolina Electric and Gas Company. (3) Ferrite Scope.

Delta Ferrite Determination

The same weld pads used for chemistry analysis were used for the ferrite number determination
per SFA-5.22, A6.9. The FN based on chemistry analyses SFA-5.22 A6.10 and alternative
ferrite scopes was also conducted for comparative reasons. Figure 4-2, shows the various ferrite
measuring devices (magna gage, ferritescope). Calibration of magnetic instruments (Magne-
Gage) is specified in AWS 4.2. A calibration chart for the Magne-gage is shown in Figure 4-3.

Figure 4-2. Ferrite measuring devices, Fisher Feritscope (left) and Magne-Gage (right).

12679136 4-5
 DELTA FERRITE MEASUREMENTS

0
MAGNE-GAGE
Linear (MAGNE-GAGE)
20
24

40
MAGNE-GAGE

16
12
60

y = -3.7692x + 107.99
9.9
80
8.1
3.4
5.7
100
2.8

120
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
FERRITE NUMBER

Figure 4-3. Magne Gage Calibration Chart

The FN measurements for the stainless steel fluxed type welding rods are listed in the
corresponding chemistry tables (Table 4-4, 4-5 and 4-6). The delta ferrite value for stainless
steel was required to be in excess of 5 FN and below 20 FN for Class 1 and 2 components, per
Regulatory Guide 1.31 and ASME, Section III, NB2430. The FN for Type 308L and 316L met
the FN requirements. Type 309L, was included in the matrix, but does not fall in the same
restrictions as the 308L or 316L. The 309L resulted in a FN in excess of the 20FN when
determined with the Magne-gage and the ferrite scope.

12679136 4-6
Mechanical Properties
Procedure qualification tests, per ASME Section IX, Subsection QW-451, were performed to
validate the capabilities of the flux-type welding rods to perform open root stainless steel
welding without a purge. In accordance with these requirements, test specimens were removed
from weld coupons for tensile and bend tests as described below.
The flux type welding rods were used to weld the root pass on pipe and plate specimens with a
standard V-groove configuration (Figure 3-1). The flux type welding rods were used to apply
the root pass with the manual GTAW process and the remainder of the weld was performed with
SMAW process or solid wire GTAW process (Table 4-6). Welding parameters for the V-groove
test specimens are listed in Table 4-7.

Table 4-6. V-groove Weld Specimens and Test Matrix for GTAW Flux Type Rods
Identification Weld Configuration Weld Material Tests
308-TGX-03-1 1G, 1/2-in. Type 304L Plate 3/32-in. TGX-308L, root pass Tensile Tests
3/32-in. Type 308L GTAW, hot pass Side bends
3/32-in. Type 308L GTAW, fill CX
passes
308-TGX-03-2 1G, 3/8-in. Type 304L Plate 3/32-in. TGX-308L, root pass CX
3/32-in. Type 308L GTAW, hot pass Prac. C
1/8-in. Type 308L GTAW, fill passes Prac. E
GPUN-308-99 5G, 5-in. Type 304L, 3/32, TGX 308L, root pass Tensile Tests
Schedule 120 Pipe 3/32-in. Type 308L GTAW, hot pass Side bends
308L SMAW, fill passes Prac. A
316-SP-03-1 1G, 1/2-in. Type 304L Plate 3/32-in. StainPlus 316L Tensile Tests
3/32-in. Type 308L GTAW, hot pass Side bends
3/32 & 1/8-in. Type 308L GTAW fill CX
passes
316-SP-03-2 1G, 3/8-in. Type 304L Plate 3/32-in. StainPlus 316L Prac. E
3/32-in. Type 308L GTAW, hot pass Prac. C
3/32-in. Type 308L GTAW fill CX
passes
TGX-308-98 6G, 5-in. Type 304L, 3/32-in. TGX-308L Prac. E
Schedule 120 pipe Type 308L GTAW, hot pass Side bends
Type 308L GTAW, fill passes RT
TGX-308-S-98 6G, 5-in. Type 304L, 3/32-in. TGX-308L Prac. E
Schedule 120 pipe Type 308L GTAW, split hot pass Side bends
Type 308L GTAW, fill passes RT
FMI-308-98 6G, 5-in. Type 304L, 3/32-in. FMI 308L, root pass Prac. E
Schedule 120 pipe Type 308L GTAW, hot pass Side bends
Type 308L GTAW, fill passes Root bend
RT
FMI-308-S-98 6G, 5-in. Type 304L, 3/32-in. FMI 308L, root pass Prac. E
Schedule 120 pipe Type 308L GTAW, split hot pass Side bends
Type 308L GTAW, fill passes Root Bend
RT

Table 4-7. Welding Parameters for V-groove test specimens

12679136 4-7
 ID Pass Amps Volts Root/Land Travel Weld Technique
Speed
TGX-308-98 Root 85-95 12 3/32-in./feathered 1.7-2.0 ipm Keyhole, vertical up
Hot pass 90-100 12 --- 2-3 Stringer
Fill --- Manual Weave
TGX-308-S-98 Root 85-95 12 3/32-in./feathered 1.7-2.0 ipm Keyhole, vertical up
Hot pass 90-100 12 --- 2.5-3.5 Stringer
Fill --- Manual Weave
FMI-308-98 Root 85-95 12 3/32-in./feathered 3-3.5 Keyhole, vertical up
Hot pass 90-100 12 --- 2-3 Stringer
Fill --- Manual Weave
FMI-308-S-98 Root 85-95 12 3/32-in./feathered 3-3.5 Keyhole, vertical up
Hot pass 90-100 12 --- 2.5-3.5 Stringer
Fill --- Manual Weave

308-TGX-03-1 Root 122 23 .110/.050 Manual Keyhole, vertical up

Hot pass 115 22.4 --- Manual Stringer
Fill 110-121 23 --- Manual Weave

308-TGX-03-2 Root 97 22 .110/.050 Manual Keyhole, vertical up

Hot pass 106 22 --- Manual Stringer
Fill 125 23-24 --- Manual Weave

316-SP-03-1 Root 124 25 .107/.050 Manual Keyhole, vertical up

Hot pass 106 22 --- Manual Stringer
Fill 121-145 22-24 --- Manual Weave

316-SP-03-2 Root 98 22.5 .111/.050 Manual Keyhole, vertical up

Hot pass 106 20 --- Manual Slight Weave
Fill 115 22.5-23 --- Manual Weave

* Shielding gas - 100% argon for all passes. No back purge for root or hot pass.

Visual and RT Examination

A visual and RT examination was conducted on weld specimens to assure weld quality was
acceptable prior to subjecting welds to further testing including mechanical and corrosion test.
After completing the weld root passes, the ID of the pipe was inspected to verify that there were
no obvious defects (LOF, ID reinforcement) and slag coverage was acceptable. A typical ID and
OD surface of a TGX root pass is shown in Figure 4-4. The ID surfaces were typically
inspected again after the subsequent hot pass welds were completed with standard ER308L
GTAW solid rod using a single and split hot pass. Specimens were inspected for typical defects
associated with the hot pass (i.e. burn through, sugaring). Typical ID surfaces after single and
split hot passes for TGX and FMI root welds are shown in Figure 4-5 and 4-6.

12679136 4-8
Figure 4-4. TGX 308L Root Pass, ID surface (right) and OD surface (left).

Figure 4-5. Photograph of Root Pass ID Surface, TGX308L with Single Hot Pass (left) and Split Hot
Pass (right).

Figure 4-6. Photograph of Root Pass ID Surface, FMI 308L with Single Hot Pass (left) and Split Hot
Pass (right).

12679136 4-9
After completing the hot passes, the test coupon were welded out and capped to support the post
welding evaluation effort. Four of the pipe weld coupons were radiographically tested (RT) to
verify rejectable indications were not present.
No rejectable indications, per the requirements of ASME Section III, were found about the full
diameter of the four test coupons evaluated.
A number of test welds were cross-sectioned to permit visual inspection and light microscopy of
the weld root and hot passes. There was no “suck back”, excessive penetration, porosity, or
sugaring on the test welds evaluated. Cross sections of typical v-groove welds with TGX and
StainPlus root passes are shown in Figure 4-7. The ID reinforcement for the flux-type welding
rods was considered acceptable, and root pass welds could be made with no “suck back”,
excessive penetration, porosity, or sugaring.

Figure 4-7. Typical Cross Section of V-groove welds with Stainplus 316L root pass (left) and TGX
308L (right).

Bend Tests
Full thickness transverse side bend and root bend tests were performed as required by ASME
Section IX, QW-451.1. The transverse side bends were machined as illustrated in QW-462.2,
and root bends per QW-462.3(a). Bend testing was performed in accordance with QW-466.
Four side bends were completed for each weldments and were typically removed from the 12:00
(flat) and 3:00 (vertical) positions for the pipe specimens. Root bend test specimens from the
FMI single and split bead hot pass coupons were taken at the 3:00 position.
No indications were observed in the root area of the root bend specimens or in subsequent fill
passes for the side bend specimens, as seen in Figure 4-8 and 4-9. Table 4-8 lists results of side
and root bend tests.

12679136 4-10
Table 4-8. Bend Test Specimens
Weld Specifications Identification Test Results
TGX 308L, GPUN 308-99 (4) Side Bends Passed
5-in. Schedule 120 pipe
TGX 308L, TGX-03-0.5 (4) Side Bends Passed
1/2-in Plate
Stain Plus 316L, SP-03-0.5 (4) Side Bends Passed
1/2-in. Plate
FMI 308, FMI-308-98 (4) Side Bends Passed
5-in. Schedule 120 pipe
FMI 308, FMI-308-S-98 (4) Side Bends Passed
5-in. Schedule 120 pipe
TGX 308, TGX-308-98 (4) Side Bends Passed
5-in. Schedule 120 pipe
TGX 308, TGX-308-S-98 (4) Side Bends Passed
5-in. Schedule 120 pipe
FMI 308, FMI-308-98 (1) Root Bend Passed
5-in. Schedule 120 pipe
FMI 308, FMI-308-S-98 (1) Root Bend Passed
5-in. Schedule 120 pipe

Figure 4-8. Typical Side Bend Test Specimens – 1/2-in. Plate Weldments, TGX 308L (308-TGX-03,
left) and StainPlus 316L(316-SP-03, right).

12679136 4-11
Figure 4-9. Typical Root Bend Test Specimen, FMI (Single, FMI-308 and Split hot pass FMI-308-S).

Reduced Section Tensile Tests

Tensile specimens were removed from the each test coupon (pipe or plate) per QW-463.1.
Reduced section tensile coupons were machined per ASME Section IX, QW-461.2(b). The test
results shown in Table 4-9 indicate that all of the specimens were considered acceptable. The
specimens ruptured in the weld at an ultimate stress exceeding 82 ksi, which is above the 75 ksi
minimum allowable for the SA-312, Type 304L pipe. A photograph of a typical test coupon
after testing is shown in Figure 4-10 and 4-11.
Two reduced section tensile tests (GPU-308-99 A & B) failed in the parent metal (Figure 4-10),
although still met the minimum specified tensile strength (>75ksi) per Section IX, QW/QB-422.

Table 4-9. Reduced Section Tensile Results

Weld Identification Dimensions Area Ultimate Strength Location of
Material Fracture
Width & In x in. Pounds Psi
Thickness
TGX 308L GPU 308L-99A 0.754 x 0.465 0.3506 29,400 83,900 Parent Metal
GPU 308L-99B 0.752 x 0.483 0.3632 29,800 82,000 Parent Metal
TGX 308L TGX-308-98 0.750 x 0.184 0.1380 11,600 84,100 Weld Metal
(flat)
TGX-308-98 0.751 x 0.192 0.1442 11,840 82,100 Weld Metal
(vertical)
TGX 308L TGX-308-S-98 0.748 x 0.173 0.1294 10,720 82,800 Weld Metal
(flat)
TGX-308-S-98 0.748 x 0.193 0.1444 12,000 83,100 Weld Metal
(vertical)

12679136 4-12
FMI 308L FMI-308-98 0.754 x 0.188 .1418 11,840 83,500 Weld Metal
(flat)
FMI-308-98 0.754 x 0.189 .1425 11,760 82,500 Weld Metal
(vertical)
FMI 308L FMI-308-S-98 0.754 x 0.187 .1410 11,760 83,400 Weld Metal
(flat)
FMI-308-S-98 0.750 x 0.184 .1380 11,440 82,900 Weld Metal
(vertical)
Note: All samples prepared in accordance with ASME Section IX

Figure 4-10. Typical Tensile Test Specimen, FMI-308-S-98, vertical location.

Figure 4-11. Reduced Section Tensile Specimens – Kobe TGX 308L Weld specimen (GPUN-308-
99). Failure location in Parents Metal.

12679136 4-13
Corrosion Analyses

To establish a basis for accepting the quality of stainless steel welds prepared without a back
purge, ASTM A-262, Standard Practices for Detecting Susceptibility to Intergranular Attack in
Austenitic Stainless Steels, were used to evaluate austenitic stainless steel weld deposits. Three
Practices were specified for this program including:
ƒ ASTM A-262, Practice A-Oxalic Acid Etch Test for Classification of Etch Structures of
Austenitic Stainless Steels
ƒ ASTM A-262, Practice E-Copper-Copper Sulfate-Sulfuric Acid Test for Detecting
Susceptibility to Intergranular Attack in Austenitic Stainless Steels
ƒ ASTM A-262, Practice C-Nitric Acid Test for Detecting Susceptibility to Intergranular
Attack in Austenitic Stainless Steels
The slag remaining on the weld deposits were also collected and analyzed for halogens and low
melting temperature elements.

Practice A-Oxalic Acid Etch Test

Practice A is an oxalic acid test for classification of etched structures of austenitic stainless steel
materials and is used to determine acceptability of materials or weld deposits. Practice A is
typically used as a rapid screening method to determine if the material is free of susceptibility to
rapid intergranular attack in more aggressive tests (Practice B through E). If Practice A provided
an acceptable etch structure (step or dual structure) the material is considered acceptable,
although if an unacceptable ditched structure occurs additional testing is required. Further
testing can provide a quantitative or verification of acceptability under specific test conditions.

Low carbon grades of stainless steel (i.e. Type 304L), are tested after sensitizing heat treatment
(Sensitizing heat treatment, 1-h at 1250F) or in the as-welded condition. Specimens evaluated in this
program were open root v-groove welds in the as-welded condition. The weld specimens are evaluated
by cross-sectioning the weld and preparing the surface (polished, etched, etc.) according to the procedure
specification of ASTM A 262, Practice A. The etched surface is typically evaluated at various locations
along the HAZ at 250X and 500X magnification. Since the welding process being evaluated is primarily
concerned with the quality of the root weld, acceptability of the etch structure at the toe of the root pass
was used to determine acceptability. An acceptable etch structure for Type 304L austenitic stainless steel
includes a step or dual structure, which consists of a structure with no grains completely surrounded by
ditches.

Practice A testing was performed on a 5-in. Type 304 Schedule 120 pipe with a V-groove joint geometry
to determine the degree of sensitization in the HAZ adjacent to the weld deposit. The weld deposit
consisted of a root pass with flux type GTAW electrode (TGX-Type 308L), a single GTAW hot pass with
solid Type 308L filler material, and intermediate and cap passes with Type 308L SMAW filler material.

12679136 4-14
Three locations along the HAZ were evaluated per ASTM A-262 Practice A (Figure 4-8). Location C is
in the HAX at the toe of the root pass, location B is in the HAZ at the mid-section of the overall weld, and
location A is in the HAZ at the toe of the cap passes. Photographs of the cross section at location C at
250x and 500x are shown in Figure 4-9. Photographs of the cross section at location B at 250x and 500x
are shown in Figure 4-10. Photographs of the cross section at location A at 250x and 500x are shown in
Figure 4-11.
No indication of ditching was observed at any of the location (A, B or C) at either 250X or 500X
magnification. All weld locations were found to have an acceptable etch structure (step
structure). Practice A test results are shown in Table 4-10.
A ditched structure for low carbon austenitic stainless steel materials (i.e. Type 304L) is not
common when standard stainless steel welding procedures are followed. A ditched structure or
sensitized structure can be produced if the base metal is overheated typically when the hot pass is
applied or when the interpass temperature is not maintained (<350F) during subsequent fill
passes. When back purge is not used, for example, with the Flux-cored GTAW root welding
process, a split hot pass procedure is used to reduce the degree of sugaring and potential
overheating of the previous weld pass and HAZ. Similarly, care should be taken when applying
the hot pass and subsequent fill passes, when utilizing the flux type GTAW rods and no purge
practice.

Figure 4-8. Cross section of TGX308L weld root and fill passes, Specimen GPU-308-99, with
locations A, B, C identified.

12679136 4-15
Figure 4-9. Area C, HAZ at the toe area of the weld. Etch Structure shows no indication of
ditching at 250x (left) and 500x (right) magnification.

Figure 4-10. Area B, HAZ at the mid section of the weld. Etch Structure shows no indication of
ditching at 250x (left) and 500x (right) magnification.

Figure 4-11. Area A, HAZ at the top of the weld. Etch Structure shows no indication of ditching at
250x (left) and 500x (right) magnification.

12679136 4-16
Table 4-10. Practice A, Etch Structures for GTAW Weld Specimens
Specimen Weld Material Location Etch Structure Results
3/32-in. 308L TGX rod – Location C Step Structure Acceptable
root (Root)
3/32-in. Type 308L Location B Step Structure Acceptable
GPU-308-99
GTAW – hot pass (center)
5G, 5-in. Schedule 120
308L SMAW - fill passes Location A Step Structure Acceptable
Pipe (Type 304L)
(Top)

12679136 4-17
ASTM A 262 Practice E - Copper-Copper Sulfate-Sulfuric Acid Test
Since many of the potential repair applications for the FC-GTAW products are in a oxidizing
environments, such as the BRW primary coolant systems, the root pass and associated heat
affected zone was evaluated to determine susceptibility of the stainless steel weldments to
intergranular attack. Root bend test coupons were removed from various test specimens and
subjected to the ASTM A-262 Practice E Test, Copper-Copper Sulfate-Sulfuric Acid Test. This
test does not detect susceptibility to sigma phase, nor does it provide a basis for predicting
resistance to other forms of corrosion such as general corrosion, pitting, or stress corrosion
cracking (i.e., IGSCC).

Full thickness transverse root bend coupons were removed from open root plate and pipe V-
groove weld specimens (Table 4-2). The root bend coupons were placed in an acidified copper
sulfate solution with copper shot, and boiled for 24-hours. Practice E test apparatus is shown in
Figure 4-12. The test specimens were removed from the boiling solution and bent through 180°
in a bend test fixture, in accordance with ASME Section IX and ASTM A 262 requirements.

Figure 4-12. ASTM A 262 Practice E Test Apparatus.

The bend coupons from the plate welds consisted of four 1/2-in. wide by 6-in. long specimens.
The four specimens consisted of two TGX 308L and two Stain Plus 316L root weld specimens
(308-TGX-03-2 and 316-SP-03-2). Both specimens were welded with a single hot pass and the
root reinforcement was ground flush with the substrate.

12679136 4-18
The bend coupon from the pipe welds consisted of four 5/8-inch wide by 3-inches long
specimens. The four bend specimens consisted of two single hot pass and two split hot pass test
specimens. One set was welded with TGX 308L flux cored rod (TGX-308-98 and TGX-308-S-
98) and the other set was welded with the flux coated FMI 308L rod (FMI-308-98 and FMI-308-
S-98). The root pass inner surfaces were left as welded with only the slag removed. Tabs were
welded to each end of the test coupons after submerging in test solution for 24-hours, to extend
the length to approximately 7-inches, to accommodate the bend fixture.
The bend test samples were examined by at 20x magnification. All specimens were free of
intergranual fissures and cracks, which are indicative of intergranular attack, and were
considered acceptable (Table 4-11). Photographs of the plate specimens are presented in Figures
4-13 and the pipe weld specimens are presented in Figures 4-14 and 4-15.

Table 4-11. Results of ASTM A262 Practice E Tests.

Specimen Weld material Location of Evaluation
Examination
308-TGX-03-2-A 308L TGX Root Acceptable

308-TGX-03-2-B 308L TGX Root Acceptable

316-SP-03-2-A 316L Stain Plus Root Acceptable
316-SP-03-2-B 316L Stain Plus Root Acceptable
TGX-308-98 308L TGX Root Acceptable
TGX-308-S-98 308L TGX Root Acceptable
FMI-308-98 308L FMI Root Acceptable
FMI-308-S-98 308L FMI Root Acceptable

12679136 4-19
Figure 4-13. TGX 308L (left) and Stain Plus 316L (right) Plate Weld Bend Specimens for Practice E
Evaluations

Figure 4-14. TGX 308L single hot pass (left) and split hot pass (right) Pipe Weld Bend Specimens
for Practice E Evaluations

12679136 4-20
Figure 4-15. FMI 308L single hot pass (left) and split hot pass (right) Pipe Weld Bend Specimens
for Practice E Evaluations

12679136 4-21
Practice C – Nitric Acid Test
Practice C is a nitric acid test that provides a quantitative measurement that can be used to
evaluate the performance of the material based on corresponding test specimen results. The test
results are based on overall weight lose of test specimens over an extended exposure time. The
test specimens are weighed after 48, 96 and 144-hours of exposure to the boiling nitric acid
solution. The specimens are exposed in the as-welded or in-service condition for testing.
Practice C, Boiling nitric acid test fixture and scientific scale are shown in Figure 4-16.
Two stainless open root weld specimens with 308L TGX and 316L Stain Plus root welds were
prepared without an argon-backing purge. The weld specimens were sectioned into 1.5-in wide
by 1.5-in. long by 3/16-in thick coupons containing 1.5-in. of weld length and a target mass of
approximately 60 grams. The weld specimens were machined to a 3/16-in. overall thickness by
removing material from the weld fill pass side and leaving the root ID surface in the as–welded
condition. The final test coupon exposed 1.5-in. of as-welded root weld surface and 1.5-in. of
intermediate weld passes (fill passes).
The weld specimens and associated mass loss after each exposure time (48-hours) are shown in
Table 4-12.
A visual examination of the test coupons indicated that no localized wastage occurred on the
exposed root surface. Weight loss was comparable to general base material weight loss of
similar base metal coupons. Addition specimens (S3 and S4) produced with autogenous GTAW
welds to simulate localized sugaring on ID surface are included in Table 4-12 for comparison.
The sugared specimens were also considered to have minimal weight loss after 144-hours of
exposure.

Figure 4-16. Practice C Test Apparatus and scientific scale.

12679136 4-22
Table 4-12. Practice C Mass Loss Measurements
308-TGX-03-2 308-SP-03-2 S3 S4
Original Mass 60.860 61.951 60.476 57.683
Mass after 48-hrs 60.790 61.873 60.406 57.605
Mass Loss 0.070 0.078 0.070 0.078
Mass after 96-hrs 60.745 61.832 60.362 57.565
Mass Loss 0.045 0.041 0.044 0.040
Mass after 144-
hrs 60.703 61.794 60.318 57.529
Mass Loss 0.042 0.038 0.044 0.036

Overall 0.157 0.157 0.158 0.154

12679136 4-23
Flux - Slag Analysis
When utilizing the Flux type GTAW filler materials on closure welds, the ability to remove the
layer of slag from the root pass surface is eliminated, thus leaving a foreign material inside the
piping system. Since most welding slag formulations typically contain halogens (i.e. calcium
fluoride), a potential concern arises regarding leaving the slag on the ID surface of the pipe
system. Elements, or their compounds, such as chlorides, halogens, sulfur, and metal low melting
point metals have been found to promote stress corrosion cracking (SCC) and intergranular
attack (IGA) upon contact with austenitic stainless steels under certain conditions. The
manufacturers of the FC-GTAW filler materials understand this concern and have formulated
their fluxes to minimize the use of SCC and IGA promoting elements.
To address potential corrosion issues, the nuclear power industry and individual plant operators
have established minimum requirements for non-metallic, nonpermanent products that come in
contact with the surfaces of corrosion resistant materials of the reactor coolant system. Most
utilities are concerned with water leachable halogens, although in some cases total halogen
concentrations are specified.
Flux was collected from the ID surface and from bead on plate welds from test coupons welded
with the flux type welding rods. The amount of slag per length of weld, typical of flux type
GTAW welding rods) was calculated at <0.400 grams per 12-in. of weld. The flux samples
were analyzed for total halogens and low melting point elements (dry testing) and water
leachable halogens and sulfur at NSL Analytical Labs.
Water leachable concentrations for halogens and sulfur were performed with NSL procedure
NSL1090 to obtain the aqueous layer. This solution was then analyzed with an Ion
Chromatography procedure per ASTM D4329. The results of testing performed on the slag
materials, and a range of allowable limits from industry surveys, are listed in Table 4-13. The
water leachable test results indicate that both alloys exhibited very low and acceptable levels of
halogens and sulfur. Analyses of the slag typically uses 1 gram of slag diluted into 100mL of
deionized water. A total weld length of 30-in. would be required to produce one gram of slag for
typical open root welding applications.

Table 4-13. Water Leachable Contaminate Concentrations From Slag Analysis

Element 308L TGX 308L FMI 309L TGX Typical Utility
Actual Actual Actual Allowables
Water Leachable <10 ppm <10 ppm <0.001 % 200–250 ppm
Chloride (Cl + Fl)
Water Leachable 44 ppm 110 ppm <0.0014 %
Fluoride)
Water Leachable <10 ppm <10 ppm <0.001 % 200–750 ppm
Sulfur
Water Leachable <10 ppm <10 ppm <0.001 % No Reported Limit
Iodine (1)
Water Leachable <10 ppm <10 ppm <0.001 % No Reported Limit
Bromine (1)
(1) Iodine and Bromine are halogens and are typically added to the measured chlorine and fluorine total to get total water
leachable halogens.

12679136 4-24
Total concentrations for halogens, sulfur, and low melting point elements were performed using
various analytical methods. Photographic Emission Spectroscopy was used to detect low
melting point elements such as Pb, Sn, Sb and Cu, Ion Chromatography (ASTM D808) was used
to detect Cl, F, Br and I and LECO furnace (ASTM D129) was used to detect Sulfur. The results
for sulfur and low melting point metals appear to meet all industry and individual utility limits
surveyed shown in Table 4-14. The fluorine content measured in slag exceeds all available
standards for limits of total halogens. However, it should be noted that several utilities do not
have established limits on total halogen, and only measure for water leachable halogens.

Table 4-14. Total Contaminate Concentrations From Slag Analysis

Element/Compound TGX 308L FMI 308L FC Typical Utility

Actual (ppm) Actual (ppm) Allowables (ppm)

Total Halogens
Chlorine 160 150 1000
Flourine 25,000 44,000
Bromine <100 <100
Iodine <100 <100

Total Sulfur 240 200 1000

Other Low Melting

Point Element <10 <10 No intentional
Pb <5 <5 additions of low
Sn <10 <10 melting point
Sb elements (1)
(1) If no statement is available from manufacturer, limits and 250 ppm maximum for all low melting point metals except
mercury. Mercury is typically limited to less than 10 ppm.

As a result of the high total halogen measurement due to fluoride content in the slag, and the
acceptable water leachable halogen measurement, the use of these materials will have to be
evaluated on an individual utility basis.

12679136 4-25
12679136 4-26
5 RECOMMENDATIONS
Welding evaluations were performed with the flux type stainless steel GTAW welding rods
without the use of back purging. The welding evaluations substantiated welding parameters,
weld prep configuration and welding techniques that would provide an acceptable root and hot
pass without incorporating the standard argon back purge for stainless steel open root welds.
The study documents welding guidelines and a test matrix to verify weld integrity, mechanical
property, and corrosion data for each filler material type and welding practice.
Basic results of the welding development concluded:
ƒ Experienced GTAW stainless welders after several days of practice could develop the
necessary skills and technique to perform successful root and hot passes with the flux
type filler materials.
ƒ Welding without a back purge did not diminish mechanical properties.
o Tensile, side bend, and root bend specimens tested in accordance with the
requirements of ASME Section IX were acceptable with no visible weld defects.
o RT and cross sectioned weld specimens revealed no rejectable weld defects.
o Visual examinations of root surfaces showed acceptable ID reinforcement with no
lack of fusion or rejectable oxidation/sugaring.
ƒ Weld chemistry and ferrite measurements met minimum requirements specified by
ASME specifications
ƒ Corrosion testing showed acceptable resistance to IG attack
o ASTM A-262 Practice E revealed no rejectable flaws at 20x magnification
o ASTM A-262 Practice A revealed an acceptable etch structure.
o ASTM A-262 Practice C revealed minimal wastage (weight loss).
o Analyses of residual slag indicated an acceptable level of water leachable
halogens (chlorine + fluorine + bromine + iodine) and sulfur was detected in the
slag
o An unacceptable levels of total halogens was detected in the slag
o Less than 0.4 grams of slag are formed on 12-in. length of weld
In summary, the flux type GTAW welding rods can be successfully deposited with root passes
which are oxidation and porosity free with the single or split hot pass. The welding rods provide
acceptable mechanical and corrosion properties. With proper training and practice these alloys
can be used to perform weld root passes on stainless steel pipe without the use of a back purge.

12679136 5-1
Due to the experience level of the welder required and the potential halogen content of the slag,
use of the flux-type GTAW rods should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

12679136 5-2
12679136

About EPRI
EPRI creates science and technology solutions for the
global energy and energy services industry. U.S. electric
utilities established the Electric Power Research Institute
in 1973 as a nonprofit research consortium for the
benefit of utility members, their customers, and society.
Now known simply as EPRI, the company provides a
wide range of innovative products and services to more
than 1000 energy-related organizations in 40 countries.
EPRI’s multidisciplinary team of scientists and engineers
draws on a worldwide network of technical and business
expertise to help solve today’s toughest energy and
environmental problems.
EPRI. Electrify the World
EPRI • 3412 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304 • PO Box 10412, Palo Alto, California 94303 • USA
800.313.3774 • 650.855.2121 • askepri@epri.com • www.epri.com
12679136
Export Control Restrictions
Access to and use of EPRI Intellectual
Property is granted with the specific
understanding and requirement that
responsibility for ensuring full compliance with
all applicable U.S. and foreign export laws and
regulations is being undertaken by you and
your company. This includes an obligation to
ensure that any individual receiving access
hereunder who is not a U.S. citizen or
permanent U.S. resident is permitted access
under applicable U.S. and foreign export laws
and regulations. In the event you are uncertain
whether you or your company may lawfully
obtain access to this EPRI Intellectual
Property, you acknowledge that it is your
obligation to consult with your company’s legal
counsel to determine whether this access is
lawful. Although EPRI may make available on
a case by case basis an informal assessment
of the applicable U.S. export classification for
specific EPRI Intellectual Property, you and
your company acknowledge that this
assessment is solely for informational
purposes and not for reliance purposes. You
and your company acknowledge that it is still
the obligation of you and your company to
make your own assessment of the applicable
U.S. export classification and ensure
compliance accordingly. You and your
company understand and acknowledge your
obligations to make a prompt report to EPRI
and the appropriate authorities regarding any
access to or use of EPRI Intellectual Property
hereunder that may be in violation of
applicable U.S. or foreign export laws or
regulations.
© 2004 Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Inc.
All rights reserved. Electric Power Research Institute
and EPRI are registered service marks of the Electric
Power Research Institute, Inc. EPRI. ELECTRIFY THE
WORLD is a service mark of the Electric Power
Research Institute, Inc.
00000000000001009718