See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/225107859

Considerations for the weldability of types 304L and 316L stainless steel

Article  in  Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention · August 2001

DOI: 10.1007/BF02715336

CITATIONS READS
34 350

2 authors, including:

Paul Korinko
Savannah River National Laboratory
86 PUBLICATIONS   169 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Additive Manufacturing View project

Zinc Vapor Mitigation View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Paul Korinko on 06 May 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 WSRC-MS-2001-00544

Considerations for the Weldability of

Types 304L and 316L Stainless Steels

P. S. Korinko

S. H. Malene

Summary

The susceptibility of austenitic stainless steels to solidification cracking and lack

of penetration, two distinct weld characteristics related to the chemical composition of the base

material is reviewed. The propensity for cracking is determined primarily by the solidification

mode and the amount of residual tramp elements such as phosphorous and sulfur. High sulfur

levels can lead to weld centerline cracking and Heat Affected Zone (HAZ) cracking while very

low sulfur levels (less than ~50 ppm) in types 304L and 316L are associated with lack of

penetration weld defects and a distinct loss in puddle control during fusion welding. A

calculated Creqivalence to Nieq ratio of 1.52 to 1.9 is recommended to control the primary mode of

solidification and prevent solidification cracks in type 304L while the Creq/Nieq ratio of 1.42 to

1.9 is recommended for type 316L stainless steel. A lower limit of 50 ppm sulfur is

recommended to avoid possible lack of penetration. The ranges should be validated by welding

trials for specific weld processes and applications.

Background

A small amount of carbon alloyed with iron makes steel. Iron is allotropic in that

Page 1
Page 2 WSRC-MS-2001-00544

it exists in at least two distinct crystalline forms, primarily dependent upon temperature. At

high temperatures the Face Centered Cubic (FCC) crystal structure of iron is stable and the term

used to describe this phase is austenite. At very high and low temperatures the Body Centered

Cubic (BCC) structure is the more stable phase and is given the name of delta and alpha ferrite,

respectively. Rapid cooling with the attendant high solidification rates from the molten steel

can "quench in" the normally higher temperature phase. Chemical additions (i.e., alloying

additions) can also alter the temperature ranges where these phases are the most stable. Nickel

atoms are nominally the same size as iron atoms and arrange themselves in the FCC structure

over a large temperature range. Therefore, substitution of nickel atoms for iron atoms has the

effect of stabilizing the austenite phase down to low temperatures. Chromium atoms are BCC

and therefore a large substitutional addition of chromium to the steel has the effect of stabilizing

the ferrite phase. Carbon and nitrogen atoms are smaller and occupy interstitial sites between

the primary atoms in a given crystal. The unit cell structure of the austenite phase

accommodates these interstitial atoms more readily than the unit cell structure of the ferrite

phase. Therefore, carbon and nitrogen are very strong austenite stabilizers at relatively small

volume fractions. Sulfur and phosphorus are considered trace impurity elements, remnant from

primary and secondary processing. Steel can hence be considered an amalgamation of chemical

elements within small crystals (grains) along with their accompanying grain boundaries. The

finer the grain-size, the stronger and tougher is the steel1 .

Stainless steels typically contain greater than 12 weight percent chromium for oxidation

and corrosion resistance. Chromium forms a tenacious oxide layer on the surface of the steel,

imparting a passivation layer to provide corrosion resistance. AISI∗ types 304L and 316L (L for

∗
American Iron and Steel Institute
Page 3 WSRC-MS-2001-00544

low carbon content) stainless steels (SS) are iron based austenitic stainless steels with the

compositional ranges shown in Table 1, depending on the specification to which it is

manufactured. These alloys have adequate Ni (8 percent minimum) to be fully austenitic in the

as-formed condition with adequate Cr (18 percent minimum) for corrosion resistance. A loss of

free or un-compounded chromium can drastically reduce the local corrosion protection leading

to preferential intergranular attack or heat affected zone (HAZ) attack, with a concomitant

degradation of mechanical properties. Such a condition is termed "sensitization"1 . The

depletion of chromium is due to the formation, growth, and precipitation of chromium carbide

particles in the grain boundaries when and where-ever the steel encounters temperatures in the

range of about 4500 C to around 8500 C, most notably in the HAZ of a weld. By simply reducing

the amount of carbon available for the chemical reaction to occur with chromium, the L grades

of stainless steel result in enhanced weld HAZ resistance to sensitization. The effects of

sensitization are a loss in corrosion resistance due to chromium depletion and a loss of fracture

toughness due to precipitation of complex carbides within and along HAZ grain boundaries.

In general, types 304L and 316L SS are readily weldable with common arc processes

such as; gas tungsten arc welding (GTAW), shielded metal arc welding (SMAW), gas metal arc

welding (GMAW) processes and other techniques1 . These traditional arc processes produce

moderate rates of heat input with correspondingly moderate cooling and solidification rates and

will generally produce a crack free weldment with acceptable microstructure in typical heats of

types 304L and 316L SS. However, a full understanding of specific interactions of primary and

trace elemental constituents of the alloys that can affect the weldability is helpful in ensuring

proper material specification. This article will address some of the chemistry effects as they

relate to welding for ASME SA 240, types 304L and 316L SS. The concepts described in this
Page 4 WSRC-MS-2001-00544

article for ASME SA 240 type 304L, can be applied to other specifications and types of 300

series SS.

When arc welding the 300 series stainless steels, which are fully austenitic in the as-

formed condition1 , research has shown that small amounts of primary delta ferrite retained in

the weld microstructure at room temperature reduce the hot cracking tendencies. Filler

materials are designed by appropriately alloying the iron based material to ensure a minimum

amount of retained ferrite in the completed weldment. For autogenous weldments (no filler

material added) the base metal chemistries of the components to be welded contingent with a

given proportion of dilution will determine, for a particular cooling rate, the composition and

hence the microconstituents of the weld microstructure. The microstructure and thermal history

determine the physical properties and serviceability of the resulting weldment.

The primary mode of solidification of the weld, be it austenite or ferrite, is therefore

important for predicting the integrity of the proposed weld from a solidification cracking

perspective. For arc welding processes, the cracking tendency can be predicted by considering

the relative amounts of the ferrite stabilizers to the amount of austenite stabilizers. While for

fusion welding processes with either very high cooling rates (as for the high energy density

beam processes such as laser and electron beam) or very low cooling rates (as with the in-situ

casting processes) the weld nugget morphology becomes more important than the primary mode

of weld pool solidification. The beam processes are best suited to applications that favor very

high aspect ratio weld nuggets (high depth to width ratio). When the beam processes are used

to affect nugget morphologies similar to that of GTAW, then the same concerns over weld hot

cracking and loss of puddle control associated with material constituents similarly apply. With

high energy beam welding (laser or electron beam) performed in the non-traditional low aspect
Page 5 WSRC-MS-2001-00544

ratio mode, loss of puddle control can be more significant than with the arc processes as there

are no arc forces present that can dominate the weld pool stirring mode.

The concept of nickel equivalence (Nieq) is the term used for the cumulative effects of

austenite stabilizing elements as a weighted summation of their respective concentration levels

while chromium equivalence (Creq) is similarly the term used for the ferrite stabilizers. The ratio

of the two terms, i.e., equivalency ratio, is usually taken as Creq/Nieq, based on the actual

chemical composition of the steels involved, and can be used as a quantitative indicator for

predicting the primary mode of solidification for arc (fusion) welded 300 series stainless steel.

Since a small but finite amount of ferrite in the finished weldment is desired, weld pool

solidification as primary ferrite is preferred to prevent the likelihood of encountering hot

cracking during welding. The customary material specifications used in the procurement of the

various types of 304L and 316L allow for a wide range in primary alloy concentration levels.

From a commercial economics perspective the practical chances of obtaining a base material

rich in either chromium or nickel is small. However, with minimill feed stocks being

increasingly high in recycled content and small in relative batch sizes, the potential for receiving

a base material rich enough in alloy content to cause a weld problem, but otherwise meeting

specification, is perceived as a real possibility. Virtually all standard specifications in current

use for the procurement of 304L and 316L allow for the possibility of receiving material overly

rich in austenite stabilizers such that weld solidification as primary austenite could occur and

lead to hot cracking in a production weld.

Chemistry

Base metal chemistry is an especially important consideration for situations where joints

are made autogenously and where recovery from an unacceptable weld is difficult.
Page 6 WSRC-MS-2001-00544

Specifications for typical products used in nuclear material packages and other pressure vessel

applications, for instance, include, ASME SA 1822 , ASME SA 2403 , ASME SA 3124 all for

304L types, ASME SFA 5.95 for 308L type, and ASME SA 240 and ASME SA312 for 316L

types. The composition ranges of the alloys and their respective specification are listed in Table

1. For simplicity, Creq and Nieq will be calculated for ASME SA 240 types 304L and 316L, and

for ASME SFA 5.9 type 308L.

Equivalence

Many researchers6,7,8,9 have examined the composition and post weld microstructure and

have each determined an equation to calculate the nickel and chromium equivalents. Several of

the equations are listed in Table 2 for the calculation of the Creq/Nieq ratio. The range of

composition can be used to predict the possible solidification modes or final microstructure,

depending on the researcher’s methodology, using any of the equations and the corresponding

constitution diagram, e.g., the Shaeffler6 , Delong7 , or Welding Research Council (WRC) 19929

constitution diagrams.

In this article, the Creq and Nieq are calculated corresponding to the equations empirically

derived from the WRC-1992 equation and then plotted on the appropriate constitution diagram

to determine which microconstituent will initially solidify. In general, it has been found that in

the absence of phosphorus and sulfur limit considerations, a minimum of 4 volume percent

ferrite1 (Ferrite Number FN 4) and a maximum of about 21 are required to prevent solidification

cracking. At very low FN, welds solidify as primary austenite and have significant cracking

tendencies, while at very high FN the weld will solidify fully as ferrite and exhibit some of the

same cracking tendencies as with FN less than 410 . In the high FN ranges large amounts of

sulfur or phosphorus may exacerbate hot cracking tendencies. To reiterate, alloys with ferrite
Page 7 WSRC-MS-2001-00544

contents/numbers between 4 and 21 solidify as primary ferrite with austenite (the region

indicated by FA in Figures 3 through 5).

Based on the welding handbook11 the propensity for encountering weld solidification

cracking decreases dramatically at Creq/Nieq ratios slightly less than 1.5 for equivalence

determined from WRC-1992 calculations, as shown in Figure 1. This Creq/Nieq ratio lower limit

is similar but not identical to that produced by Suutala, et al. 12 who used the Hammar and

Svenson8 (H&S) Creq and Nieq equations. The difference between the “critical” Nieq/Creq ratios

for the WRC-1992 and H&S is due to different coefficients attached to the various elements.

This effect can clearly be seen by applying the H&S and WRC-1992 calculations to a typical

heat of Type 304L SS listed in Table 1. The difference between the two calculations is a few

percent.

Suutala et al. report further on the effects of P and S on weld cracking susceptibility as

shown in Figure 2. Sulfur, although a tramp element, has been shown to be beneficial in small

quantities (greater than ~50 ppm) by enhancing weld penetration. This will be discussed in

more detail later.

To evaluate the possible solidification morphologies allowed by the specification ASME

SA 240 types 304L and 316L and specification ER308L, the appropriate composition ranges

listed in Table 1 were used at the extreme values for Ni and Cr and the Creq and Nieq were

calculated using the formula from the WRC-1992 equivalence equations. The calculated Creq

and Nieq values and Creq/Nieq ratios presented in Table 4 show minimum and maximum values.

The extreme values form the corners of a rectangle when plotted on the WRC 1992 constitution

diagram as shown in Figures 3 through 5.

Page 8 WSRC-MS-2001-00544

The plot for ASME SA 240 type 304L shows that approximately one tenth of the area

(possible compositions that meet specification) enclosed by the limit lines will solidify as

austenite, and additional fourth will solidify as primary austenite, one half will solidify as

primary ferrite, while the balance will solidify as ferrite. Similarly for ASME SA 240 type

316L, approximately one third of the possible compositions will solidify as austenite, one fourth

as primary austenite, one third as primary ferrite and the balance as ferrite. The solidification

mode can be altered with the addition of filler metal that is enriched in ferrite stabilizers. Type

308L is one such alloy, it’s equivalence range is plotted in Figure 5, and it exhibits a

solidification mode that will have either primary ferrite or fully austenite. Thus by suitable in

arc alloying, dilution, the solidification mode can be modified.

It should be noted that the maximum carbon content permitted by the ASME SA 240 was

used for the calculations. In addition, due to the absence of specification limits for nitrogen, a

typical amount of 0.07% was assumed. It has been shown that a base metal content of 0.02% N

can increase to 0.1% following a fusion weld operation due to nitrogen pick-up from the

atmosphere1 unless the weld is cooled completely to room temperature under a protective gas

shield. Certified Material Test Reports (CMTR) can necessarily include only the measured

nitrogen content of the unwelded base material. Allowance for the prospect of an increase in

nitrogen content for the weld is made by specifying a slightly higher Creq/Nieq in the initial

procurement recommendation. The nitrogen content taken from the CMTR should therefore be

used "as reported" in calculating the Creq/Nieq ratio. However, actual weld sample testing can be

considered for critical applications.

Page 9 WSRC-MS-2001-00544

P and S Effects

In addition to considering the solidification mode of 300 series SS for cracking

susceptibility, one must also consider the effects of sulfur and phosphorus on weld penetration

and weld cracking, as indicated by Figure 2. Small amounts of sulfur (0.005 to 0.026 wt%)

have been associated with improved weld penetration, thus it is prudent to specify a lower limit

to better insure weldability. Descriptions of the mechanisms are beyond the scope of this

document suffice to say that very low sulfur stainless steels (less than ~50 ppm) exhibit poor or

intermittent penetration and unstable weld pool control. Heats with excessive sulfur content

may experience heat affected zone (HAZ) cracking or weld centerline cracking, especially in

alloys rich in austenite stabilizers. The effect of phosphorus is primarily one of fusion zone

cracking13 as opposed to weld puddle control or penetration effects. The cracking tendencies of

P and S tend to be combined and are assumed additive as indicated by Satuula in Figure 212 .

The degree of cracking is largely dependent upon the solidification mode so the Creq/Nieq ratio

in conjunction with the P and S content provides some indication of the cracking potential for a

given solidification rate. This is not a simple "rule of thumb" since Brooks et al.14 demonstrated

a shift in solidification mode from primary ferrite to primary austenite for two alloys with

Creq/Nieq ratios of 1.48 and S contents of 0.04% and 0.11%, respectively. Thus it is prudent to

consider the alloy composition, application, post weld inspection, etc., prior to specifying a

possibly tighter range of allowable compositions than permitted by the specification. In

addition, the extent of weld restraint present during welding may affect the amount of hot

cracking. For instance, the with no restraint, hot cracks may not form even with primary

austenite solidification while with some restraint hot cracks can be a problem, as shown in

Figure 6. Other welding variables such as shielding gas composition, flux, filler metal, etc., can
Page 10 WSRC-MS-2001-00544

have a pronounced effect on penetration and can be used to alleviate S and P concerns therefore

these considerations should be reviewed in the context of specific applications.

Often, serviceability and machinability considerations rather than weldability drive

institutional specifications used for the manufacture and procurement of commercial grades of

stainless steel. For instance, sulfur is added to the free machining grades of austenitic stainless

steels and from a commercial perspective it is not uncommon to encounter heat lots of material

at the high end of the specifications in S. Conversely, minimill feedstocks are often rich in

recycled content and may contain very low residuals of P and S (<.002%, less than ~20 ppm).

This situation is possible since there are no minimum requirements in the ASTM specifications

on trace element concentration levels. A base material with an extremely low sulfur content

may produce a nearly unweldable alloy (i.e., poor penetration and puddle control) yet one that is

crack insensitive when fusion welded, as suggested by Figure 2.

Discussion

The review presented here reveals that general material specifications governing alloy

concentration levels cover a wide range of chemistries and are open to maximum limits

concerning primary alloying agents and minimum and maximum limits on residual elements.

The composition ranges permitted by specification ASME SA 240 for types 304L and 316L SS

alone may result in alloys that promote full austenite or primary austenite solidification modes

in autogenous welds of these materials, these solidification modes are known to be crack

sensitive. While the commercial economic realities preclude the likelihood of obtaining alloys

overly rich in either chromium or nickel, the specifications clearly allow for the possibilities.

Certainly incoming steels have tended to be much cleaner (less tramp element content) and

more refined over the last decade. Based on the theoretically possible rich and clean alloys
Page 11 WSRC-MS-2001-00544

allowed by specification ASME SA 240, for example, the predicted weld morphologies suggest

that during fusion welding a potential exists for conditions that promote solidification cracks

due to primary solidification modes other than primary ferrite. Also, a potential exists for lack

of penetration and uncontrollable weld pool conditions due to surface tension variability with

very low sulfur levels. The types 304L and 316L SS material procurement specifications for

fusion welded products should include, in addition to the institutional specifications, high and

low limits on the calculated Creq/Niea ratio and low limits on the residual sulfur content based on

CMTR data, especially for autogenously welded products. The production weld quality

assurance enhancement promulgated through the implementation of such chemical content

calculations, based on readily available (often required) CMTR data, represents insurance

against future material chemistry induced welding related rejects or field failures.

As an example, the composition of the “typical” ASME SA 240 type 304L SS listed in

Table 1, was used to calculate the Creq and Nie q and these data were plotted in Figure 3. It can

be seen that this heat of material will solidify as primary ferrite with a ferrite number of

approximately 9. Thus, this heat of material should not be prone to solidification cracks due to

austenitic solidification. The second issue that is of concern is the combination of tramp

elements and Creq/Nieq ratio. The Creq/Nieq ratio for this alloy was determined to be 1.81 and

the P+S was 0.05%, Table 3. Comparing the equivalence ratio to Figure 1 indicates that

cracking susceptibility is low, and plotting this on Figure 2 also indicates that this heat of

material is not crack susceptible.

Specific Recommendation

To help insure that types 304L and 316L SS are relatively crack insensitive, and yet

weldable, particularly when welded autogenously, limits should be placed on the Cre q/Nieq ratios
Page 12 WSRC-MS-2001-00544

and sulfur content. Using the WRC-1992 constitution diagram and Creq and Nieq equations, a

Creq/Nieq ratio range of 1.5 to 1.9 should be used for type 304L SS. The suggested Creq/Nieq

ratio range for type 316L SS is 1.43 to 1.9; the lower limit is decreased due to the higher

propensity for primary austenite solidification with type 316L SS. For both cases, the sulfur

range should be 0.005 to 0.030% for acceptable penetration.

Lower S limits may be used in conjunction with lower Creq/Nieq ratios, however, lack of

penetration or the need to use filler metal may arise. Welding trials to verify that an appropriate

balance of required properties has been achieved may also be incorporated into the procurement

specification.

Acknowledgements:

The authors would like to acknowledge John Brooks of Sandia National Laboratories for

providing micrographs and technical input and the DOE for support under Contract No. DE-

AC09-89SR18035 and DE-AC09-96SR18500.

Page 13 WSRC-MS-2001-00544

Table 1. Composition ranges for various specifications of types 304L, 308L, and 316L.

App C Mn P S Si Cr Ni Mo N Fe
Specification Type Max. Max. Max. Max. Max. Max.
SA 182 304L 0.035 2.00 0.045 0.030 1.00 18.00- 8.00- N/A N/A Bal.
(forging) 22.00 13.00
SA 240 304L 0.030 2.00 0.045 0.030 0.75 18.00- 8.00- N/A 0.10 Bal.
(plate) 20.00 12.00
SA 312 304L 0.035 2.00 0.040 0.030 0.75 18.00- 8.00- N/A N/A Bal.
(pipe) 20.00 13.00
SA 312 316L 0.035 2.00 0.04 0.03 0.75 16.0- 10.0- 2.00- N/A Bal.
(pipe) 18.0 15.0 3.00
SA 240 316L 0.03 2.00 0.045 0.03 0.75 16.00- 10.00- 2.00- 0.1 Bal.
(plate) 18.00 14.00 3.00
ER308L sfa5.9 308L 0.030 1.0- 0.030 0.030 0.75 19.50- 9.00- 0.75 N/A Bal.
2.5 22.00 11.00 Max.
Typical SA 240 304L 0.024 1.75 0.031 0.022 0.40 18.41 8.75 0.213 0.033 Bal.

Table 2. List of several possible Creq and Nieq that may be used.

Author Year Cr equivalent, w% Ni Equivalent, w%

Schaeffler6 1949 Cr + Mo + 1.5Si + 0.5Nb Ni + 0.5Mn + 30C
DeLong et al.7 1956 Cr + Mo + 1.5Si + 0.5 Nb Ni + 0.5Mn + 30C + 30N
Hull10 1973 Cr + 1.21Mo + 0.48Si + Ni + (0.11Mn – 0.0086Mn2 ) +
0.14Nb + 2.27V + 0.72W + 24.5 C + 14.2N + 0.41Co +
2.20Ti + 0.21Ta + 2.48Al 0.44Cu
Hammar and 1979 Cr + 1.37Mo + 1.5Si + 2Nb Ni + 0.31Mn + 22C + 14.2N
Svenson8 + 3Ti + Cu
Siewert and Kotecki9 1992 Cr + Mo + 0.7Nb Ni + 35C + 20N + 0.25Cu
(WRC-1992)

Table 3. Calculated equivalence values for the typical SA 240 listed in Table 1 using both
WRC 1992 and Hammar and Svenson equations.

WRC-1992 Hammar and Svenson

Creq Nieq Creq/Ni eq Creq Nieq Creq/Ni eq P+S
18.62 10.31 1.81 19.30 10.46 1.85 0.05
Page 14 WSRC-MS-2001-00544

Table 4. Cr and Ni equivalents for the alloys shown in Table 1 using the extremes of the
composition limits as calculated using the WRC-1992 equivalence equation shown below.

Creq/Ni eq
WRC
Specification Creq Nieq
1992
(Min/Max)
SA 240 18.00 9.45 1.20
(304L) 20.00 15.05 2.12
ER308L 20.25 10.45 1.44
Sfa5.9 22.00 14.05 2.11
SA 240 18.00 11.45 1.06
(316L) 21.00 17.05 1.83
WRC 1992: Creq = Cr + Mo + 0.7Nb:
Nieq = Ni + 35 C + 20 N + 0.25 Cu
Page 15 WSRC-MS-2001-00544

References:

1. Brooks, J. A., and J. C. Lippold, "Selection of Wrought Austenitic Stainless Steels",

Metals Handbook Volume 6, Welding, Brazing, and Soldering, Metals Park, OH, 1993.

2. Anon, ASME 1998 Section II, AMSE SA-182/SA-182M, “Specification for Forged or

Rolled Alloy-Steel Pipe Flanges, Forged Fittings, and Valves and Parts for High-Temperature

Service”, NY, pp. 229-249, 1998.

3. Anon, ASME 1998 Section II, AMSE SA-240/SA-240M, “Specification for Heat-

Resisting Chromium and Chromium-Nickel Stainless Steel Plate, Sheet, and Strip for Pressure

Vessels,” NY, pp. 363-370.i, 1998.

4. Anon, ASME 1998 Section II, AMSE SA-312/SA-312M, “Specification for Seamless

and Welded Austenitic Stainless Steel Pipes”, NY, pp. 477-490, 1998

5. Anon, ASME 1998 Section II, AMSE SFA-5.9, “Specification for Bare Stainless Steel

Welding Electrodes and Rods”, NY, pp. 203-227, 1998.

6. Schaeffler, A. L. “Constitution Diagram of Stainless Steel Weld Metal”, Metal Progress,

56, pp. 680-680B, November 1949.

7. DeLong, W.T., G. A. Osram, and E. R. Szumachowski, Weld Journal, 35, pp. 521s-528s,

1956.

8. Hammar, O. and U. Svensson, “Influence Of Steel Composition on Segregation and

Microstructure During Solidification of Austenitic Stainless Steels”, Solidification and Casting

of Metals, The Metals Society, London, pp. 401-410, 1979.

9. Kotecki, D. J. and T. A. Siewert, “WRC-1992 Constitution Diagram for Stainless Steel

Weld Metals: A Modification of the WRC-1988 Diagram”, Welding Research Supplement, pp.

171s-177s, May 1992.

Page 16 WSRC-MS-2001-00544

10. Hull, F.C., Welding Journal, 46, pp. 399s-409s, 1967.

11. Anon, Welding Handbook, Eighth Edition, Volume 4., Materials and Applications Part

2., AWS, Miami, FL. 1998.

12. Takalo, T., Suutala, N., and T. Moisio, "Austenitic Solidification Mode in Austenitic

Stainless Steel Welds", Met. Trans. A, Vol. 10A, pp. 1173-1181, Aug. 1979.

13. Li, L. and R.W. Messler, Jr., The Effect of Phosphorous and Sulfur on the Susceptibility

to Weld Hot Cracking in Austenitic Stainless Steels”, Welding Journal, 71, pp. 171s-179s. May,

1999.

14. Brooks, J. A. , S. H. Goods, and C. V. Robino, “Weld Properties of a Free Machining

Stainless Steel”, Sandia Report Sand2000-8002, Sandia National Laboratories, August 2000.
Page 17 WSRC-MS-2001-00544

List of Tables:

Table 1. Composition ranges for various specifications of types 304L, 308L, and 316L.

Table 2. List of several possible Creq and Nieq that may be used.

Table 3. Calculated equivalence values for the typical SA 240 listed in Table 1 using both

WRC 1992 and Hammar and Svenson equations.

Table 4. Cr and Ni equivalents for the alloys shown in Table 1 using the extremes of the

composition limits as calculated using the WRC-1992 equivalence equation shown below.
Page 18 WSRC-MS-2001-00544

List of Figures

Figure 1. Cracking susceptibility based on WRC-1992 Cr and Ni equivalence, ref. 12.

Figure 2. Cracking susceptibility of 300 series stainless steel based on Cr-Ni equivalence from

Hammar and Svenson, ref. 13.

For Figures 3 through 5: Area A denotes primary solidification as austenite with no further

transformation down to room temperature (high Nieq).

Area AF denotes primary solidification as austenite with subsequent partial transformation to

ferrite on cooling (slightly high Nieq).

Area FA denotes primary solidification as ferrite with subsequent partial transformation to

austenite (slightly high Creq) representing the favored solidification mode.

Area F denotes primary solidification as ferrite with no further transformation (high Creq).

Figure 3. WRC 1992 Constitution diagram for SA 240 type 304L SS composition range Cr and

Ni equivalence plotted.

Figure 4. WRC 1992 Constitution diagram with SA 240 type 316L Cr and Ni equivalence range

indicated.

Figure 5. WRC 1992 Constitution diagram with SFA-5.9 (type 308L) ER308L compositions

ranges indicated.

Figure 6. Micrograph showing solidification cracks in an alloy that solidified with primary

austenite.
Page 19 WSRC-MS-2001-00544

Figure 1. Cracking susceptibility based on WRC-1992 Cr and Ni equivalence, ref.

11.
Page 20 WSRC-MS-2001-00544

Figure 2. Cracking susceptibility of 300 series stainless steel based on Cr-Ni

equivalence from Hammar and Svenson, ref. 13.
Page 21 WSRC-MS-2001-00544

Figure 3. WRC 1992 Constitution diagram for SA 240 type 304L SS composition range Cr
and Ni equivalence plotted.

For Figures 3 through 5: Area A denotes primary solidification as austenite with no further
transformation down to room temperature (high Nieq).

Area AF denotes primary solidification as austenite with subsequent partial transformation to

ferrite on cooling (slightly high Nieq).

Area FA denotes primary solidification as ferrite with subsequent partial transformation to

austenite (slightly high Creq) representing the favored solidification mode.

Area F denotes primary solidification as ferrite with no further transformation (high Creq).
Page 22 WSRC-MS-2001-00544

Figure 4. WRC 1992 Constitution diagram with SA 240 type 316L Cr and Ni
equivalence range indicated.
Page 23 WSRC-MS-2001-00544

Figure 5. WRC 1992 Constitution diagram with SFA-5.9 (type 308L) ER308L
compositions ranges indicated.
 Page 24 WSRC-MS-2001-00544

Figure 6. Micrograph showing solidification cracks in an alloy that solidified with primary
austenite.

View publication stats