Technical reports

A n e w c o n s t i t u t i o n diagram for predicting

f e r r i t e c o n t e n t of stainless steel w e l d
metals*
Duplex stainless steels combine the best properties of austenitic and ferritic stainless steels. They
possess high yield strengths ( = 450 N/mm 2) and have excellent resistance to stress corrosion cracking
in severe corrosive environments. The secret of this optimum combination of properties is the balanced
austenite-ferrite microstructure of the alloys and the weld metals used to join them. The High Alloys
Committee of the US-based Welding Research Council has recently issued a new constitution diagram
to assist the prediction of the ferrite content of duplex stainless steel weld metals from the alloy's
chemical composition.

Keywords: stainless steels; constitution diagram; ferrite content

The prediction of ferrite content from the chemical com-
position of austenitic stainless steel weld metal began in
1949 with Anton Schaeffler ~. He recorded the ferrite con-
tent by examining the weld metal's microstructure and
relating the microstructural phases (i.e. austenite and
ferrite) to the alloying elements present. He characterized
the elements as either austenite or ferrite formers. For the
austenite-forming elements, he assigned a weighing
factor relative to nickel and this term was called the
nickel equivalent (Ni~q). For the ferrite-forming elements
he assigned a weighting factor relative to chromium
called the chromium equivalent (Crcq). Using the re-
corded austenite ferrite contents and the expressions of
nickel and chromium equivalents, he then drew what is
today known as the Schaeffler Diagram, which was
stated to be accurate for Types 308, 309, 309Cb, 310,
312, 316, 317, 318 and 347 within + 4 % ferrite. The only
type that is near the duplex stainless steel ferrite range is
the Type 312.
The next diagram to relate chemical composition and
ferrite content was the DeLong Diagram 2, first published
in 1956. It recognized the importance of the element
nitrogen as a strong austenitizer and added this element
to the Ni~q with a weighting factor of 30. This diagram,
because of smaller divisions and a larger scale, improved
the accuracy of ferrite calculation on the 300 series stain-
less steels, especially in the area where the optimum
ferrite content 0 - 1 5 % , is found. Essentially, the
DeLong Diagram is a small area of the Schaeffler
Diagram with an additional factor for nitrogen and is
not suitable for prediction of ferrite in the duplex range.
In 1973, the DeLong Diagram was modified to show
Ferrite N u m b e r (FN) 3. This came after the adoption of a
standardized method of ferrite measurement described in
AWS A4.2 and later in ISO 8249. The use of Ferrite
Number instead of per cent ferrite indicates the use of the
standardized method of measurement. The DeLong
Diagram has been used widely since it was incorporated
*This report is extracted from: "TheWRC diagram', by J. Feldstein and
F. Lake, published in Sw, tsaren 1993, 47(2), 36 39. Further infor-
mation can be obtained from Mr Frank Lake, The ESAB Group Inc.,
Hanover, PA 17331, USA.
into ASME Code Section III, on a much wider basis than
just the nuclear plant to which Section Ill applies. In the
almost 40 years since it was published, some of the limi-
tations of the DeLong Diagram have become apparent.
It is not suitable for use with stainless steels with high
manganese contents since they give ferrite contents as if
they contained only 1% manganese. The prediction of
ferrite in the Type 309 weld metal is higher than mea-
sured and finally, there is a need to predict ferrite for the
stainless steels where the ferrite content could be up to
100 FN (100 FN is somewhat below 100% ferrite).
Developing a new diagram
To remedy this situation, in 1986, the Welding Research
Council (USA), through the Stainless Steel Subcommit-
tee of the High Alloys Committee, established a pro-
gramme to develop an improved predictive diagram that
is continuous over the range (~100 FN. To accomplish
this, a database containing recent FN data and new
composition was developed through the effort of the
Committee's members. About 1000 ferrite measurements
were provided based on magnetic instruments calibrated
to AWS A4.2 along with the accompanying chemical
analyses. The data came from electrode manufacturers,
research institutes and fabricators, from Austria, Britain,
Holland and the USA. Through the use of statistical
regression techniques, a new predictive diagram was
drawn. This became known as the WRC-1988 Diagram 4
and it looks like a combination of the DeLong Diagram
with some of the Schaeffler Diagram added for high
ferrite values. The major differences between the W R C -
1988 Diagram and the DeLong and Schaeffler Diagrams
are in the elements that are used to calculate the chro-
mium and nickel equivalents. Both manganese and sili-
con have been omitted and the weightings for carbon,
nitrogen and niobium have been changed with respect to
the earlier diagrams. The new diagram became the most
accurate constitution diagram for the prediction of fer-
rite content of austenitic and duplex austenitic-ferritic
stainless steels weld metals from chemical composition.
The W R C Diagram is different in two other ways from

Materials & Design V o l u m e 14 N u m b e r 6 1993 345

Technical reports
18 20 22 24
18 .,-
f j'J
//
= f"
"
,." ' /
~ 14
"" 12"'" F Ii#,I
18 20 22 24
Creq = Cr * M o 0.7 Nb
Figure 1 The WRC-92 'reference' diagram
the earlier ones. First, there is no martensite line since the
presence of martensite depends on elements not shown
on the diagram. Second, there are lines to indicate the
four modes of solidification. They come from work by
Suutala and are probably more critical in predicting weld
metal cracking than room temperature ferrite. The
regions A and A F have primary austenite solidification
and solidification cracking is more likely in those regions.
The regions F and FA have primary ferrite solidification
and solidification cracking is less likely there.
Later work by Lake 5 added a factor for copper and
this diagram is known as the WRC-1992 diagram. The
factor for copper is necessary since a number of stainless
steels, including some duplex stainless steels, contain
deliberate copper additions. In steels where there is no
deliberate addition of copper, values as high as 0.5%
copper are sometimes present as residuals.
The WRC Diagram has its limitations which should be
recognized. It is dependent on the quality of the chemical
analysis and a cooling rate that is not too dissimilar to
that of arc welding. Levels of manganese up to 10% and
nitrogen levels up to 0.25% are covered by the diagram
but steels with over 1% silicon or 3% molybdenum may
give lower prediction accuracy. Another source of error
is in the reproduction of the diagram. For this reason,
the diagram published by Kotecki and Siewert 6 has been
designated the 'reference' diagram (see Figure 1). Extra-
polation outside the area of lines on the diagram is not
recommended since the iso-ferrite lines become non-
linear at high alloy contents.
346 Materials & Design Volume 14 Number 6 1993
26 28 30
i 18
~ . .
,,
:2/./z,. 14
~ ,. .
>" 12
10
26 28 30
How much ferrite?
Nearly 50 years ago filler metal producers began to rea-
lize that a small amount of ferrite prevented weld crack-
ing in austenitic stainless steels. As a result, many specifi-
cations now require 5 F N minimum in the weld deposit.
While this requirement is valid for a large quantity of
fabrication work where avoidance of cracking is the sole
issue, there are many applications where the presence (or
absence) of ferrite is crucial to the component's service.
In cases where a component will be subject to post-weld
heat treatment or where the weld will see elevated tem-
perature service, it is common to specify (in addition to a
5 FN minimum) a maximum ferrite limit of 12 F N to
limit brittle sigma formation. In certain highly corrosive
applications such as urea-processing plants, the ferrite is
limited to 2 FN. Similarly, in cryogenic applications
where toughness at temperatures below - 1 0 0 C is of
concern, Type 316L weld metal is normally specified with
a maximum limit of 2 FN.
Ferrite requirements for duplex stainless steel weld
metals require a closely controlled range for the satisfac-
tory performance of the weldment. At the low end, a
minimum ferrite is required to assure comparable corro-
sion resistance to the base metal while, at the upper end,
a maximum ferrite content assures satisfactory tensile
elongation and notch toughness. Further, recent work
has shown that duplex weld metals with high ferrite
levels ( > 70 FN) are susceptible to hydrogen cracking
when moisture contents are high. It is generally accepted
that duplex stainless steel consumables should have fer-

18 20 22 24 26 28 30
18 j~ ~f
/ /
0 ," / 0
u3
c~ 16
z
C~
14
o o
u')
t,) 12
e
ii
g 10
NN NNNNN y I
18 20 22 24 26 28 30
Creq = Cr * M o * 0.7 Nb
Figure 2 The values of the Nioq and Creq for a type 2209 duplex
electrode are plotted as point A and for a type 2205 duplex steel as
point B. Point C is the predicted ferrite content of the weld metal
rite in the range 30-60 FN with G T A and G M A welds
better able to tolerate higher ferrite levels.
Using the WRC Diagram
Where it is possible, magnetic measurement of ferrite
content is recommended as the most accurate method of
ferrite determination of weld metal. Should one wish to
estimate the ferrite content of a base metal, a welding
consumable or a weld metal (if a weld is too small to be
measured by a magnetic instrument), it is possible to
predict the ferrite content of the weld consumable or
weldment from its chemical composition by means of the
W R C Diagram. For instance, the ferrite potential of
AWS A5.4 E2209, UNS W39209 weld metal with a com-
position of 0.02% C, 0.8% Mn, 0.8% Si, 22.5% Cr,
9.0% Ni, 3% Mo, 0.02% Nb, 0.2% Cu and 0.17% N is
found by calculating the Nieq and Creq.
O K 67.50 is an example of such an electrode.
Nieq = 9.0 + 35*0.02 + 20"0.17 + 0.25*0.2 = 13.1
Creq = 22.5 + 3 + 0.7*0.02 = 25.5
These values are plotted on Figure 2 as Point A, to give a
predicted ferrite of 35 FN.
In the case of a weldment, the Ni~q and Cr~q of the
consumable and base metal are calculated from their
respective compositions and plotted on the W R C
Diagram. Figure' 2 shows the Type 2209 duplex electrode,
Point A and a Type 2205 base metal, Point B, which
contains 0.02% C, 1.5% Mn, 0.4% Si, 22% Cr, 5.5% Ni,
3% Mo, 0.02% Nb, 0.2% Cu and 0.15% N. To estimate
the weld metal ferrite content, a line is drawn between
these two points. This line represents all possible compo-
sitions of the weld deposit for different degrees of dilu-
tion. Assuming a 30% dilution of the weld by the base
metal, the predicted ferrite for the weld metal, Point C,
can be found at a point 30% of the distance along the
line from the consumable, Point A, towards the base
metal, Point B. This predicts a ferrite content of 49 FN.
The amount of dilution varies with welding process and
type of joint. In general for arc welding the dilution
ranges from 15% when cladding to 40% for welding thin
plate. G T A W root runs with filler metal can be as high as
60%.
This same methodology described above can be used
Technical reports
18 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 18
18
-) / #/
1,0
16 c~ 16 A " ~." /'~ ~'.,~z!z///~" . 16
z
0
,, Y/"
14 14
ur)
12 t~ 12
ii
10
18 20 22 24 26 28 30
Creq = Cr * M o * 0.7 Nb
Figure 3 The WRC-92 Diagram can be used for a dissimilar joint.
Point A is the type 2209 electrode. Point B is the type 2205 steel which is
welded to a type 304L steel, Point D. Point E shows the ferrite content
if the plates are fused together without filler material and Point F is the
predicted ferrite content when the plates are welded with the type 2209
electrode
for a dissimilar joint. For example, if the Type 2209 filler
metal, Point A, described above were used to weld the
Type 2205 base metal, Point B, to Type 304L base metal,
Point D, the points lie on the diagram as in Figure 3.
Point E shows what the composition of the weld metal
would be if these items were fused together without a
filler metal. If we assume that each base metal is fused to
the same extent, Point E will lie half way between B and
D. Since the welding is done using Type 2209 filler metal,
the composition of the weld metal, Point F, will lie along
the line AE with its position depending on the degree of
dilution. If the dilution is 30%, we get a suitable weld
metal composition, i.e. an austenitic-ferritic structure
with 32 Ferrite Number. If the base metal dilutions are
not equal, the effective composition is moved towards
the base metal giving the most dilution. Kotecki and
SiewerP give a plotting method for dissimilar metals
using the W R C Diagram where one of the base metals is
a mild or low alloy steel.
It is possible to choose an electrode by trying different
consumable compositions with the base metal(s) and
finding the one which gives the most desirable weld metal
ferrite content and solidification mode. In the same way,
a welding technique or process can be chosen by finding
the best dilution. This can be tedious, but there a number
of computer programs available to eliminate the hand
calculations and plotting. Examples of such programs
are the Esab G r o u p Schaeffler-deLong-WRC 92 pro-
gram, and the American Welding Institute's Ferrite Pre-
dictor. It is easy to find the dilution to give the required
ferrite in the weld or the required consumable compo-
sition to do the same. The use of the computer makes the
dissimilar joint calculation easy. Care must be taken by
the user that the computer program being used, its data-
bases and its default values are appropriate to the appli-
cations and the chemical analyses are accurate and com-
plete.
References
1 Schaeffler, A. L. Constitution diagram for stainless steel weld metal.
Metal Progress, 1949, 56 (l 1), 680 and 680 B, November.
2 DeLong, W. T., Ostrom, G. A. and Szumachowski, E.R. Measure-
ment and calculation of ferrite in stainless-steel weld metal. Welding
Journal 1956, 35 (1 l), 526, November.
Materials & Design Volume 14 Number 6 1993 347
Technical reports
3 Long, C. J. and DeLong, W. T. The ferrite content of austenitic
stainless steel weld metal. Welding Journal 1973, 52(7), 281, July.
4 McCowan, C. N. Siewert, T.A. and Olson, D.L. Stainless steel weld
metal: prediction of ferrite content. WRC Bulletin 1989, 342, April.
5 Lake, F. B. Effect of copper on stainless steel weld metal ferrite
348 Materials & Design Volume 14 Number 6 1993
content. Paper presented at the 1990 AWS Annual Meeting Ana-
heim CA.
Kotecki D. J. and Siewert, T. A. WRC-1992 Constitution Diagram
for stainless steel weld metals: a modification of the WRC-1988
Diagram. Welding Journal 1992, 71(5), 171, May.