Previously published in METALLOGRAPHY

23:1-19 (1989)

Characterization of Weld Solidification Cracking in a Duplex

Stainless Steel

I. VAROL AND W. A. BAESLACK III

Department of WeldingEngineering, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210
AND

J. C. LIPPOLD
?dison Welding Institute, Columbus, Ohio 43210

Weld solidification cracking in the duplex stainless steel SAF 2205has been investigated
and compared with tl at of alternate duplex and austenitic stainless steels. Varestraint weldability testing showed SAF 2205to exhibit a lower cracking susceptibility than that of the
duplex stainless steel Ferrdium 255but greater than that of a Type 304austenitic stainless
steel which solidified as ferrite and exhibited Ferrite Number 8 (FN 8) in the weld fusion
zone. The high augmented strain levels required to induce cracking in these three alloys
during Varestraint testing indicated a highresistance to solidificationcracking at strain levels
normally encountered in structural weldments. Cracking susceptibilities of the duplex and
Type 304/FN-8 stainless steels were appreciably lower than that of a Type 304L stainless
steel which solidified entir,dy to austenite and exhibited less than FN 1 in the weld fusion
zone.
Microstructural characterization of SAF 2205using conventional black-and-white and two
different color metallography techniques showed solidification cracks to be associated with
ferrite grain boundaries. Color metallography was also effective in revealing the fusion zone
solidification structu -e and delineating second phases, including inter- and intragranular
austenite and tine Cr.JNprecipitates. Fractographic analysis of solidification crack surfaces
from SAF 2205Vare:traint samples revealed dendritic and flat topographies, and confirmed
a solidification versui solid-state cracking mechanism.

Introduction
Duplex stainless steels have become an important alternativeto conventional austenltic stainless steels in marine, petroleum, and chemical
processing applicationswhich require high resistance to stress-corrosion
cracking in chloride-c:obtainingor hydrogen-sulphide(sour gas) environ-

555
MATERIAI

S CFIARA(

tiRIZz~TION

39:355-.573 (1997)

HswierScience Inc., 1998

655 Avenue of the Am~>rcas,New York,NY10010

1044-5803/97/$17.00
PII S1O-L-58O3(97)OOI44-7

I. Varol et al.

556

PLATE1. Light micrographs of SAF 2205 base metal microstructure: (a) blackand-white contrast; (b) color contrast using Murakamis reagent; (c) color contrast using ferro-fluid technique. Ferrite (F) and austenite(A) phases are indicated.

Weld Cracking it! a L~uplex Stainless Steel

557

PLATE1. (Continued)

PLATE2. Light mlcrographs showing top surface of Mini-Varestraint specimen

in SAF2205 tested It 5% augmented strain: (a) black-and-white contrast; (b) color
contrast using Murakamis reagent; (c) color contrast using ferro-fluid technique.
Arrows indicate fusion zone solidification cracks along ferrite grain boundaries.

558

I. Varol et al.

ments [1]. The two-phase, ferritic-austenitic microstructure, which characterizes these alloys, is achieved by maintaining a proper balance of
fernte-stabilizing and austenite-stabilizing elements in the alloy chemical
composition and by providing a suitable solution heat treatment. Relative
to austenitic stainless steels, duplex alloys typically contain increased
chromium (2225 wt?%),decreased nickel (4-8 wt~o), increased nitrogen
(0.1-0.2 wt%), and 2-4 wt% molybdenum. Solution heat treatment of hotrolled plate between about 1,020and 1,100Cfollowed by water quenching
produces a microstructure comprised of nearly equal proportions of ferrite
and austenite.
The increased utilization of duplex stainless steels in industrial applications will require an improved understanding of those metallurgical factors that influence weldability. Recently, the susceptibility of duplex stainless steels to fusion zone solidification cracking has been investigated by
Nelson et al. [2], who used the Varestraint weldability test. Their results
showed the commercial duplex stainless steel Ferralium 255 to exhibit a
solidification cracking susceptibility somewhat greater than that of a conventional Type 304L austenitic stainless steel which solidified as ferrite
and exhibited a fusion zone Ferrite Number of 6 (FN 6, approximately 6
vol Yoferrite), but well below that of Type 304L stainless steels which
solidified entirely to austenite. The greater susceptibility of Ferralium 255
to solidification cracking versus the Type 304L/FN 6 alloy was attributed
to the more effective wetting of like ferrite-ferrite grain boundaries by
low-melting liquid films [3, 4]. In the Type 304L/FN 6 alloy, the formation
of austenite during the final stages of solidification (via peritectic and/or
eutectic reactions) produces dissimilar ferrite/austenite grain and subgrain
boundaries, which inhibit wetting and reduce solidification cracking [57]. Evidence of copper enrichment at fusion zone grain boundaries in
Ferralium 255 suggested that solidification cracking susceptibility may
have been further enhanced by the presence of a low-melting, Cu-rich
liquid at grain boundaries during the final stages of weld metal solidification. Copper is effective in depressing the melting temperature of ironbase alloys and may also improve the wetting characteristics of the grain
boundary liquid.
SAF 2205 is a duplex stainless steel which contains no copper and,
consequently, it may be anticipated that the alloy would exhibit a greater
resistance to solidification cracking relative to Ferralium 255, given the
same solidification conditions and impurity levels (primarily phosphorus
and sulfur). The Varestraint weldability test, coupled with appropriate
optical and electron microscopy techniques, provides an effective test
method for evaluating compositional variations that influence weld cracking susceptibility. The overall objective of the present study was twofold:

559

Weld Cracking i~ a Duplex Stainless Steel

1) to compare the weld fusion zone solidification cracking behavior of

SAF 2205 with that of both Ferralium 255 and alternate commercial austenitic stainless steels using the Varestraint test, and 2) to employ and
compare the effectiveness of two different color metallography techniques
in delineating base metal and weld fusion zone phases and solidification
cracks in the SA F 2205 alloy.
Experimental

Alloys investil:ated.included SAF 2205and Ferralium255 duplex stainless steels, and Type 304 and Type 304L austenitic stainless steels. All
alloys were provided in the form of hot-rolled and solution-annealed/
water-quenched plate 6.3 mm in thickness. A compositional analysis of
each alloy is prcvided in Table 1.
The Mini-Varcstraintweldabilitytest, which is schematicallyillustrated
in Fig. 1, was used to assess the relative susceptibility of the stainless

steels to fusion zone: solidification cracking. Test parameters and conditions are provided in Table 2. Specimens with dimensions of 6.4 x 25.4
x 152 mm wet-c tested at augmented strains of 3.1 and 5.0%. At least
three specimens were tested at each strain level. Following testing, specimens were cleaned Iusingan alkaline permanganate-citrate acid method
[2]. The number and length of the solidification cracks were determined
at x 40 magnification using a binocular microscope equipped with a filar
eyepiece.
Selected Mini-Varestraint specimens were sectioned, mounted, and
polished through 0.05 pm alumina for metallographic examination. An
attack-polishin,g technique was employed during the final stages of polishing to remove microscopic scratches while minimizing the rounding
off of crack edges. ,4 solution of equal parts hydrochloric, nitric, and
acetic acid added to the 0.05 p-m alumina suspension was used in this

procedure. After polishing, specimens were prepared for light microscopy

using three different procedures. For black-and-white contrast using both
TABLE 1
Chemical Cornpo:iitionof Duplex and Austenitic Stainless Steels (wt. %)
Fe

Cr

Ni

Mo

Cu

Mn

Si

Ferralium
SAF 2205
Type 304

Bal.
Bal.
Bal.

24.9
21.7
18.6

5.4
5.8
8.0

3.1
2.7
0.2

1.7

1.1
1.7
1.5

0.54
0.48
0.39

0.027
0.019
0.042

0.17
0.13
0.05

0.001
0.002
0.007

0.023
0.021
0.019

Type 304L

Bal.

18.4

11.3

0.2

1.8 0.53

Alloy

0.017 0.04

0.002 0.027

Z. Varol et al.

560

PLATE2. (Continued)

Weld Cracking in a L~uplex Stainless Steel

561

PLATE3, Light micrographs of SAF 2205 weld fusion zone, color contrast using
Murakamis reagent: (a) solidification
substructure with growth direction
oriented perpendicular to plane of micrograph; (b) tip of solidification crack.
Large arrows indicate austenite along ferrite grain boundaries, small arrows indicate fine precipitai es along subgrain boundaries in ferrite.

I. Varol et al.

562

THE SUBSCALEVARESTRAINTTEST

T_

.-------

L
Top View
I

+
FIG. 1. Schematic illustration of Mini-Varestraint weldability test apparatus.

standard and differential interference contrast (DIC) imaging, specimens

were electrolytically etched in a 10Yooxalic acid solution at 6V for 1020 s.

In addition to conventional black-and-white metallography, two color

metallography techniques were employed to aid the delineation of microstructural details in the SAF 2205weld fusion zone. The first technique
was similar to that previously employed by the investigators in characterizing the weld microstructure of Ferralium 255 [8]. The first step involved electrolytic etching in a 10% oxalic acid solution as described
above to reveal austenite and ferrite phases, and fine precipitates. The
second step involved immersion of the specimen in boiling Murakamis
reagent (10 g permanganate and 10g potassium hydroxide in 100ml water)

Weld Cracking i~ a Duplex Stainless Steel

563

TABLE 2
Mini-Varestraint Test Parameters
Current
Voltage
Travel speed
Electrode-to-work distance
Electrode
Electrode diameter
Shielding gas
Flow rate (torch)

180amp
17v
2.5 mmls
2.38 mm
Thonated tungsten 60included angle
2.38 mm
Argon
0.29 1/s

for 60 min in orcer tc) produce a composition-sensitive interference film.

Specimen imagirlgrevealed a variety of colors in the ferrite phase, while
the austenite remained nearly white. A second color metallography technique developed by IGinn[9] for the identification and measurement of
the ferrite and amtenite phases in duplex stainless steel weldments was
also utilized. This procedure involved coating the as-polished specimen
with a ferro-fluid colloidal suspension of FesOd in paraffin. During this
coating process, residual magnetism in the ferrite promoted adherence of
the iron oxide to this phase. Imaging of this specimen revealed a dark
blue or brown ferrite phase while the austeniteagain remained white.
Finally, selecled SAF 2205 Mini-Varestraintspecimens tested at 5%
augmented strain were carefully sectioned, immersed in liquid nitrogen
and broken to reveal the solidification crack surfaces for analysis with
scanning-electronmicroscopy (SEM) and energy-dispersivex-ray (EDS)
analysis.
Results

BASE METAL MICROSTRUCTURE

Light microscopy of the SAF 2205 base metal microstructure using
conventional black-and-white contrast clearly showed the directionally
oriented austenite and ferrite phases (Plate 1A). Under normal reflected
light conditions, the ferrite and austenite phases were not clearly distinguishable, even after relatively heavy etching in 10% oxalic acid. The
depth of field provided by differential-interference imaging, as shown in
Plate 1A, provided improved phase delineation, however, and revealed
approximately equal proportions of the ferrite and austenite phases.
As shown in l?lates IB, C, color metallography techniques greatly enhanced phase delineation. The Murakamis reagent developed interfer-

564

I. Varol et al.

PLATE 4. Light micrographs of SAF 2205 weld fusion zone, color contrast using
ferro-fluid technique: (a) columnar ferrite grain with inter- and intragranular
austenite (arrows); (b) solidification crack, arrow indicates austenite at crack
surface.

Weld Cracking in a Duplex Stainless Steel

565

ence films of varyin,gthickness on the ferrite phase, as indicated by the

variety of colors exhibited. It is well established that an increase in fdm
thickness generally promotes a transition in color from yellow to mauve
and finally to blue [10].Previous color metallography studies on Ferralium
255 using Murakamis reagent [8] had indicated that the film thickness
and associated color are composition sensititive, with increased chromium content promcting a greater film thickness and, hence, the tendency
to appear bIue. Since the SAF 2205 base material was solution annealed
and water quen;hed, it would be expected that significant compositional
differences would not exist across the ferrite phase. The observed differences in colc~rof the ferrite phase in Plate IB suggest that the ferrite
composition may not be uniform or the effects of ferrite crystallographic
orientation may influence film deposition characteristics.
The yellow and blue coloration of the ferrite phase provided by the
ferro-fluid technique provided equally superior contrast against the unaffected, white-appearing austenite. Again, differences in color of the
ferrite phase at different locations in the microstructure were associated
with variations in the thickness of the colloidal film present on the specimen surface.
QUANTITATIVE VARESTRAINT TEST DATA
Quantitativeresultsof Mini-Varestrainttests on SAF 2205, Ferralium
255, Type 304/FN 8 and Type 304L/FN O austenitic stainless steels are
shown in Fig. 2. The best index of the relative fusion zone hot cracking
susceptibility was provided by plotting the total crack length (TCL) on
the specimen surface versus the augmented strain for strain levels of 3.1
and 590. Using this index, the Type 304/FN 8 specimen exhibited the
lowest susceptibilityto solidificationcracking at both strainlevels. Of the
duplex stainless steels, the SAF 2205 exhibited a somewhat lower susceptibility thanthatof Ferralium255at both augmentedstrainlevels. The
fully austenitic Type 304L/FN Oalloy exhibited a cracking susceptibility
appreciably higher than those of the duplex alloys.
METALLOGRAPHY OF VARESTRAINT TEST SPECIMENS
Metallographic examinationof the top surfaces (plan view) of Varestraintspecimens of both the duplex stainlesssteelsand the fully austenitic
Type 304L alloy, which solidifiedto a singlephase revealed intergranular
solidification cracks distributedaround the periphery of the solid-liquid
interface at the instant of applied strain (as schematically illustratedin

566

I. Varol et al.

p74

- n

2205

3.10/0
50/0

255

304

304L

FIG.2. Total crack length versus alloy type for Mini-Varestraint specimens tested at 3.1
and 5Y0augmented strain.

Fig. 1). In contrast, solidification cracks in the Type 304/FN 8 weld metal
were very short and not as clearly associated with fusion zone grain
boundaries.
Typical weld solidification cracks in a SAF 2205 specimen tested at 5%
augmented strain are shown in Plate 2. Conventional black-and-white imaging showed a columnar ferrite g;tin structure with dark-etching constituents within the grains and light-etchinggrain boundary regions, which
aided delineation of the intergranular solidification cracks. Color metallography using Murakamis reagent provided clearer delineation of the
columnar grain structure via resolution of the solidification substructure
and the nearly continuous austenite at ferrite grain boundaries. As shown
in Plate 2B, the dendrite core regions appeared dark blue while the ferrite
located at dendrite interstices and adjacent to grain boundaries appeared
yellow. Solidification cracks were clearly discernible at fusion zone grain
boundaries. The ferro-fluid technique also provided a sharp contrast between the colored ferrite and white austenite phases (Plate 2C). This tech-

Weld Cracking in a Duplex Stainless Steel

567

nique provided perhapsthe clearest delineationof both the columnar fusion zone grain structureand intergranularsolidification cracks, but did
not reveal the solidification subgrainstructure.
Examination >f the fusion zone microstructure at increased magnification using co~ventional black-and-white contrast revealed additional

details not apparent at low magnification. Figure 3 shows a fusion zone

crack and the surrounding region imaged using differential-interference
contrast. Austenite grain boundary allotriomorphs and intragranular austenite plates are apparent as raised microstructural details. It is of interest
to note the presence of austenite along the crack surfaces and its growth
into the grain interior. Fine, dark-etching precipitates, which nucleated
both uniformly within the ferrite grain and heterogeneouslyat subgrain
boundaries, are also (evident.Previous studies suggest that the precipitates
may be either CrzN, chromium-rich carbonitrides, MX(C,N)6, or a combination [11, 12]. Their formation resulted from the high nitrogen content
of the alloy and the decreasing volubilityof this element in the ferrite on
cooling. The no:ed absence of these precipitates adjacent to grain boundaries and intraglanular austenite was likely due to the aftlnity of austenite
for the nitrogen, thereby precluding precipitation of the nitrogen-rich
phase in the surrounding ferrite. This behavior is analagous to the presence of precipitate-free zones in other alloy systems.

FIG. 3. Light micrograph of fusion zone solidification crack in SAF 2205at high magnification, differential intlarferencecontrast (DIC). Large arrows indicate austenite on crack
surfaces, small arrow indicates fine precipitates along subgrain boundary in ferrite.

568

Z. Varol et al.

Of the metallographic techniques utilized, the Mumkamis reagent color

technique was unique in revealing characteristics of the weld soliditlcation
substructure. Plate 3A illustrates the microstructure of a ferrite grain with
the dendrite growth direction oriented nearly perpendicular to the plane
of the micrograph. Colors exhibited by the ferrite phase ranged from yellow at dendrite interstices and adjacent to grain boundaries to blue nearer
the dendrite cores. Note that the weld metal austenite appears both white
and yellow and approaches the color of the ferrite dendrite interstices.
This interference behavior suggests that the relative composition diiYerence of the ferrite and austenite in the fusion zone is not as large as that
in the base material (Plate 1).
It is of interest to note the presence of a mauve color at dendrite cores,
indicating a possible depletion of chromium directly at the dendrite cores.
Such a depletion is inconsistent with Fe-Cr-Ni phase diagram considerations and electron microprobe studies [13]on austenitic stainless steels,
which solidified completely to ferrite. These analyses revealed a slight
enrichment of chromium at dendrite cores relative to the dendrite interstices (i.e., ko for Cr <1). The apparent discrepancy suggested by color
variations in Plate 3 may be due to the variation in composition of the
duplex stainless steels relative to the austenitic grades, particularly with
respect to nickel and molybdenum. These variations in composition would
be expected to alter the segregation of alloying elements during weld
solidification and, in turn, influence the nature of the deposited interference film.
Plate 3B shows a fusion zone solidification crack and the presence of
austenite on the crack surfaces. The yellow ferrite region surrounding the
crack tip may result from compositional differences in the vicinity of the
crack due to segregation along solidification grain boundaries or backfdling of liquid from the fusion zone. It is of interest to note in Plate 3B
that the yellow-etching region at the crack tip extends beyond the crack
tip into the fenjte grain, while the actual grain boundary deviates from
this region due to migration subsequent to the completion of solidification
and crack formation.
Plate 4A, B illustrates the fusion zone microstructure and solid~lcation
crack as revealed by the ferro-fluid color metallography technique. Although elemental partitioning details are limited, the austenite present at
ferrite grain boundaries and along the crack surface are clearly delineated
from the colored ferrite phase.
Solidification cracking morphologies in the alternate duplex and austenitic stainless steels compared well with those previously reported for
these alloy types [2]. Soliditlcation cracks in the fully austenitic Type
304L/FN Oalloy were associated with relatively straight austenite grain

w.

Weld Cracking in a Duplex Stainless Steel

569

(a)

FIG. 4. SEM fractogaphs of fusion zone solidification crack surface in SAF 2205. (a)
Entire crack surface, arrow indicates end of crack farthest from solid-liquidinterface at time
of straining; (b) higher magn~lcation of (a) showingtransition from relatively flat (left side)
to dendritic fracture surface.

570

I. Varol et al.

boundaries. In contrast, the Type 304/FN 8 alloy exhibited extremely

short, discontinuous cracks, which could not be clearly associated with
fusion zone solidification grain boundaries.
FRACTOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
Figure 4 illustrates representative weld solidification crack surfaces in
the SAF 2205. A general transition from the dendritic-appearing surface
near the solid-liquidinterface at the instant of straining, to a flatter fracture
surface farther from the interface is apparent. The generally wavy appearance of the surface at high magnification (Fig. 4B) indicated that
cracking was entirely solid~lcation-related versus solid-state in nature.
Microanalytical compositional analysis using SEM and EDS revealed no
apparent enrichment of alloying elements on the crack surface relative to
the bulk.
Discussion

Weld solidification cracking requires the simultaneous presence of a

crack-susceptible microstructure and a threshold level of weld restraint.
In stainless steels, the origin of a crack-susceptible microstructure results
principally from the formation of impurity-enriched, low-melting liquid
fdms along grain boundaries during the final stages of solidification. Although the general influence of ferrite content in the weld at room temperature on soliditlcation cracking sensitivity has long been recognized,
it was not until recently that this cracking sensitivity was more accurately
related to the solid~lcation behavior of stainless steel welds [3-7]. In
alloys that exhibit a CrJNieq below approximately 1.5, the primary phase
of soliditlcation is austenite. Several characteristics of primary austenite
solid~lcation encourage weld solidification cracking, including 1)the low
volubility of impurities such as sulfur and phosphorus in austenite, 2)
severe partitioning of these impurities to austenite solid~lcation boundaries, 3) the tendency to form relatively straight, nontortuous boundaries, and 4) the ability of liquid fdms to effectively wet austenite-austenite
grain boundaries. These mechanisms, either separately or in concert, undoubtedly contributed to the high cracking susceptibility of the Type 304L/
FN Oalloy during Varestraint testing.
An increased CrJNi~q ratio (1.5 to 2.0) promotes primary solidification
to ferrite. During soliditlcation, a peritectic and/or eutectic reaction during
the final stages of solidification promotes formation of austenite along
solidflcation boundaries. On cooling, the austenite consumes much of

Weld

Cracking (n a Duplex Stainless Steel

571

the ferrite via a solid-statetransformation,with approximately 510 vol

% ferrite retained at room temperature.The high solidification cracking
resistance of this alloy composition has been attributedto the higher volubility of sulfur in tlheprimary ferrite phase, with difficulties in wetting
the ferrite-austenitephase boundariesby low-meltingliquidand tortuosity
of the boundary crack path resultingfrom the two-phase microstructure.
The high cracking resistance exhibited by the Type 304/FN 8 alloy evaluated in the present investigation was consistent with these previous
mechanistic observations.
Stainlesssteels that solidify completely to ferrite (Cre~/Nie. >2), such
as the duplex :itainllesssteels, have been shown to exhibit a cracking
susceptibilityintermediatebetween alloys thatexperience fully-austenitic
arid ferritic/austeniticsolidification.The increased cracking susceptibility
versus the ferril.ic/austeniticsolidified stainlesssteels has been attributed
to the presence of relativelystraight,like-phase, ferritic grainboundaries
reminiscent of fully austeniticweld metals. Weld cracking datapresented
here were consistent with expected behavior in that both the SAF 2205
and Ferralium;!55 exhibit intermediateweld cracking susceptibility.
In considering differences in cracking susceptibilitiesof the two duplex
alloys in the ccntext of the alloy composition, it is likely that minor alloying element (e.g., S, P) effects were minimal. The presence of Cu in
Ferralium255 may have accounted for the observed difference in cracking
susceptibilityrelative to SAF 2205, perhaps due to its influence in further

suppressing the melkingpoint of intergranular liquid films or increasing

the wetting effectiveness of these films.
It is of importance to note that commercial welding experience with
the duplex stairdess steels, including SAF 2205, has shown relativelylittle
difficulty with solidification cracking [14, 15], with cracking resistance
generally comparable to that experienced in FN 5-10 austenitic stainless
steels. The differences in cracking susceptibility indicated in this study
may be associated with the highaugmentedstrainlevels requiredto induce
cracking in the allo:ys. At lower strainlevels, which are more representative of conventional welding conditions, cracking susceptibilities may
be more comparable.
The two-color metallographytechniques were found to be highly effective in revealingmicrostructuraldetailsin the SAF 2205not discernible
via conventionalblack-and-whitemetallography.The Murakamis reagent
and ferro-fluid techniques were effective in revealing the columnar ferrite
grain structure in the fusion zone principally by distinguishingthe colored
ferrite regions from the nearly continuous, white-appearing austenite at
grain boundari~s. The Murakami;s reagent also delineated the solidification substructure and associated microsegregation. Both techniques

572

1. Varol et al.

were effective in revealing the intergranular solidification crack morphologies. In addition, the Murakamis reagent provided evidence of compositional differences associated with the crack region, possibly due to
solidflcation-induced grain boundary enrichment or backtil]ing from the
fusion zone. Although the comparison of the apparent compositional differences with EDS analysis was inconclusive, future studies utilizingmore
discriminating analytical techniques, such as electron microprobe anaJysis, may provide a better correlation between observed color and actual
chemical composition.
Summary

SAF 2205 exhibits a weld solidification cracking susceptibility slightly

less than that of the duplex alloy Ferralium 255. Cracking in the duplex
alloys was found to be intermediate between Type 304/FN 8 (ferrite soliditlcation) and Type 304/FN O(austenite solidification) austenitic stainless steels. Color metallography techniques were found highly effective
in revealing microstructural details, including phase characteristics,
macro- and microsegregation, and solidification cracking morphologies.
The authors are grateful to Dr. Berthold Lundqvist of Sandvik Steel,
Sandviken, Sweden, andillr. Lee Flasche of Haynes Alloys International,
Kokomo, Indiana, USA, for providing materials. Appreciation is also
expressed to the Stainless Steel Subcommittee of the Welding Research
Council (WRC), High Alloys Committee, for their financial support of
this work.
References
1. T. A. DeBold, J. W. Martin, aud J. C. Tverberg, Duplex stainless offers strength and
corrosion resistance, in DuplexStainlessSteels(R. A. Lula,cd.), American Society for
Metals, Metals Park, Ohio (1983),pp. 169-189.
2. D. E. Nelson, W. A. Baeslack III, and J. C. Lippold, An investigation of weld hot
cracking in duplex stainless steels, WeldingJournal66:241
s-250s(1987).
3. F. C. Hull, Effects of composition on embnttlement ofaustenitic stainless steels, Welding Journal 52:104s-113s(1973).
4. N. Suutala, T. Takalo, and T. Moisio, Single-phase ferritic solidtilcation in austenitic
stainless steel welds, MetallurgicalTransactions
1OA:1183-119O
(1979).
5. N. Suutala, T. Takalo, and T. Moisio, Ferritic-austenitic soliditlcation mocieinaustenitic
stainless steel welds, MetallurgicalTransactions11A:717-725(1980).
6. F. Matsuda, H. Nakagawa, T. tJehara, S. Katayama, and Y. Arata, A new explanation
for the role of delta-ferrite in improving weld soliditlcation crack susceptibility in austenitic stainless steel, Transactions
of JWRl8(1):105-112
(1979).

Weld Cracking In a Duplex Stainless Steel

573

7. J. A. Brooks, A. W. Thompson,and J. C. Williams,A fundamental study of the benetlcial

effect of delta ferrite in reducing weld cracking, Welding.lourmd 63:71s83s (1984).
8. D. E. Nelson, W. A. Baeslack III, and J. C. Lippold, Characterization of the weld
structure in duplex stainless steels using color metallography, Metallography 18:215225 (1985).
9. B. J. Ginn, A t:chnicpe for determining austenite to ferrite ratios in welded duplex
stainless steels, The WeldingInstitute Research Bulletin, 26:365367 (1985).
10. E. Beraha and B. Shpigler, Color Metallography, American Society for Metals, Metals
Park, Ohio (1979,pp 3-21.
11. G. Herbsleb and P. Schwabb, Precipitation of intermetallic compounds, nitrides and
carbides in AF :22duplex steel and their influence on corrosion behavior in acids, in
Duplex Stain/es:.Steels,(R. A. Lula, cd.) American Society for Metals, Metals Park,
Ohio (1983),pp. 15-40.
12. J. C. Lippold and W. ,4. Baeslack, III, Phase transformation behaviour in duplex stainless steel weldments, Metal Construction20(1):21R-26R (1988).
13. G. L. Leone and H. W. Kerr, The Ferrite to Austenite Transformation in Stainless
Steels, WeldingJournal61:13s-21s (1982).
14. D. Blumtield, G. A. Clark, and P. Guha, Welding duplex austenitic-ferntic stainless
steels, Me/alCcrrstruction13(5):269273(1981).
15. T. G. Gooch, Wtldability ofduplex ferritic-austenitic stainless steels, inDuplex Stainless
Steels (R. A. Lu a, cd.) American Society for Metals, Metals Park, Ohio (1983)pp. 573602.