WELDABILITY AND CORROSION STUDIES OF AISI 316L ELECTROPOLISHED TUBING

by

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

Abstract: This research was performed to identify the optimum AISI 316L compositions for use in welded components in corrosive service. The weldability of AISI 316L electropolished tubing showed a strong correlation between the cosmetic quality of the resultant weld and the base chemistry, as calculated using the Hammar and Svensson equivalents: Cr eq = Cr + 1.37 Mo + 1.5 Si + 2 Nb + 3 Ti Ni eq = Ni + 0.31 Mn + 22 C + 14.2 N + Cu For autogenous welding, a 316L composition with a Cr eq/Ni eq 1.45 provided a cosmetically acceptable weld with minimal slag. In addition, corrosion resistance of welded 316L remained relatively high when measured ferrite in the weld was under 3%, or when Cr eq/Ni eq 1.55. Specimens from seven heats of commercially available 2.0 in. diam. AISI 316L electropolished tubing, with Cr eq/Ni eq ratios ranging from 1.38 to 1.68, were orbitally and autogenously welded using fixed weld parameters. Heats with Cr eq/Ni eq ratios above approximately 1.45 produced acceptable welds, while those with ratios below 1.45 did not. Acceptable welds appeared to have a ferriticaustenitic solidification mode, had minimal slag, and were very slightly magnetic, indicating some retained ferrite.

Although some ferrite appeared desirable for a cosmetically acceptable slag-free weld, too much ferrite created preferential corrosion sites. Welded 316L showed reduced pitting corrosion resistance when its base composition exhibited a greater propensity for the formation of ferrite: that is, when it had a higher Cr eq/Ni eq ratio. Research to identify the optimum chemistries for best corrosion resistance of 316L after welding was performed, examining variations in Cr eq/Ni eq, tubing sizes, and welding parameters. Twenty-one heats of commercially available AISI 316L electropolished tubing with Cr eq/Ni eq varying from 1.2 to 1.8 and sizes from 0.25 in. to 2.0 in. in diameter were examined. Samples from each tube lot were orbitally and autogenously welded with welding parameters varied to achieve an acceptable weld, as defined by weld bead thickness and appearance. Welded tube samples from each lot were evaluated for corrosion resistance using a standard ASTM electrochemical (critical pitting temperature) test method. Only the internal electropolished surface of the tubing was exposed. Corrosion resistance decreased considerably for autogenous welds with ferrite levels above 3%. The same effect was noted for Cr eq/Ni eq ratios above 1.55. This research resulted in an optimized chemistry patent pending.

WELDABILITY AND CORROSION STUDIES OF AISI 316L ELECTROPOLISHED TUBING by Sunniva R. Collins and Peter C. Williams

Figure 1 Acceptable and rejectable weld at approximately 10

Introduction AISI 316L is commonly used in many industries, including the bioprocess or pharmaceutical industries, in fluid system applications. In these applications, large systems of AISI 316L tubing are orbitally/autogenously welded in place. As a method of construction, welding is fast and avoids the crevices (and potential for crevice corrosion) common with mechanical couplings. Unacceptable weld characteristics include bead meander, oxidation, and slag formation. There are also cosmetic geometric issues, such as weld bead width and height. In bioprocess applications, cleaning in place (CIP) is common. The systems must avoid corrosion in service, as corrosion products will contaminate the final product. Bioprocess applications are usually wet, which introduces the possibility of rouging and microbially induced corrosion. Rouge is a contaminant found in many hot water and steam systems consisting of various forms of iron oxide; these iron oxides are a corrosion product that can affect the purity of the final product. Rouge is often treated in by shutting down, cleaning and repassivating the entire system. Microbially induced corrosion initiates in the heat affected zones of welds, and in crevices or cracks. MIC
L

AF L

FA L

FA L

F L

L = liquid

= austenite

= ferrite

Figure 2 Solidification Modes in AISI 316L A = austenitic; AF = austenitic-ferritic; FA = ferritic-austenitic; F = ferritic

occurs when aerobic and anaerobic microbes create a colony by removing material, forming deep pits with small pinhole openings on the interior of the tube. MIC in a system can speed up corrosive processes drastically; a system designed to work for 10 years can fail in two or less if MIC is present. Weldability of 316L Compositional restrictions on 316L have been explored, particularly on residual or tramp elements.(1) Many of these restrictions have to do with the slag that may form on welds, or the redeposited metallic vapors that may potentially

WELDABILITY AND CORROSION STUDIES OF AISI 316L ELECTROPOLISHED TUBING by Sunniva R. Collins and Peter C. Williams

form corrosion sites. Welds are visually inspected, and excessive heat coloration or slag formation are causes for rejection. Welds are expected to be smooth, straight, flat or slightly beaded, with an ID width approximately one to two times the thickness of the tubing.(2) Figure 1 shows examples of acceptable and rejectable welds. Minor changes in composition can alter the way in which 316L solidifies during welding. Possible solidification modes for 316L are illustrated in Fig. 2.(3) These modes include austenitic, austenitic-ferritic, ferritic-austenitic, and ferritic. The majority of 316L chemistries will provide welds that are austenitic, austeniticferritic, or ferritic-austenitic. The austenitic weld will solidify completely to austenite and no further high-temperature transformations occur. The austenitic-ferritic weld solidifies as austenite and -ferrite is formed from the melt retained between the austenite dendrites. In the ferritic-austenitic weld, ferrite solidifies first and austenite forms between the ferrite dendrites. The austenite subsequently grows into the ferrite, resulting in a significant decrease in the volume fraction of ferrite. At room temperature, the weld is substantially austenite, with a small volume of retained ferrite. Figure 3 shows secondary electron (SE) and backscatter electron (BE) images of weld slag on a rejectable weld. These images indicate that slag elements are rejected by the solidification front of the weld, and the BE contrast indicates that the slag phase and the weld metal have significantly different chemical compositions. When the weld slag is analyzed using energy-dispersive spectrometry (EDS), concentrations of calcium, aluminum, silicon, and other elements are found. Table 1 lists the maximum solubility in both ferrite (bcc) and austenite (fcc) of some elements commonly found in weld slag.(4) In all cases, these elements have a higher solubility in ferrite than in austenite. These data indicate that to reduce or eliminate slag formation, ferritic-austenitic

Figure 3 Weld slag at approximately 100 Top: secondary electron image. Bottom: backscatter electron image

solidification is the preferred solidification mode. The competition between ferritepromoting elements and austenite-promoting elements can be described by the chromium and

WELDABILITY AND CORROSION STUDIES OF AISI 316L ELECTROPOLISHED TUBING by Sunniva R. Collins and Peter C. Williams

Table 1. Maximum solubility of slag elements in Fe (bcc) and Fe (fcc) Element Solubility in ferrite, wt. % 0.024 10.9 30 8.7 11.7 Solubility in austenite, wt. % 0.016 1.9 0.95 ~1 ~1

Ca Si Al Ti Zr

nickel equivalents. The chromium equivalent takes into account those elements that promote the formation of ferrite, while the nickel equivalent accounts for those elements that promote the formation of austenite. Since 316L is an austenitic stainless steel, there must be enough chromium present to form the stable chromic oxide layer (which gives the steel its stainless characteristics) balanced by enough austenite forming elements to stabilize the crystal structure as austenite. There are several commonly used chromium and nickel equivalents,(5) but the equations developed by Hammar and Svensson(6) show an excellent correlation between composition and solidification mode, especially for austenitic stainless steels. The Hammar and Svensson equivalents are as follows: Cr eq = Cr + 1.37 Mo + 1.5 Si + 2 Nb + 3 Ti Ni eq = Ni + 0.31 Mn + 22 C + 14.2 N + Cu Using these equations, solidification mode can be predicted by the ratio of Cr eq/Ni eq.(7) For Cr eq/Ni eq < 1.5, the solidification mode is austenitic or austenitic-ferritic. From 1.5 Cr eq/Ni eq 2.0, solidification is ferriticaustenitic, and for values of Cr eq/Ni eq > 2.0, solidification is ferritic. Welds acceptable to the semiconductor industry appear to have a ferriticaustenitic solidification mode. Acceptable welds have no slag, and will be very slightly magnetic, indicating some retained ferrite.

As Cr eq/Ni eq increases, the higher the propensity for the formation of ferrite. A small amount of -ferrite reduces the tendency for hot cracking when 316L is welded. (8, 9) However, the presence of -ferrite in welded austenitic stainless steel has been found to stimulate pitting corrosion, (10) and recent specifications indicate a very low allowable -ferrite for use of welded components in corrosive service. (11) Beyond an understanding that increasing ferrite translates to decreasing corrosion resistance, the -ferrite content for which corrosion resistance is significantly affected has not been well established. Welding technique may have some effect on the solidification mode, since it can affect the weld metal composition through dilution and nitrogen pickup. However, for the relatively small and precise welds common in autogenous welding for higher purity applications, the overall effect of solidification conditions is of secondary importance, and solidification mode is largely determined by chemistry.(12) Under practical solidification conditions, the transition between austeniticferritic and ferritic-austenitic solidification modes occurs when Cr eq/Ni eq = 1.5 0.03. Corrosion Resistance of Welded 316L Pitting corrosion is the most common failure mode in welded 316L(13-15) , and therefore the mode of concern. Pitting is a form of localized attack caused by a breakdown in the thin passive oxide film that protects stainless steel from the corrosion process. Pits are commonly the results of a concentration cell established by a variation in solution composition in contact with the alloy. These variations occur when the solution at a surface irregularity (such as an inclusion) is different from that of the bulk solution composition. Once a pit has formed, it acts as an anode supported by a large cathodic region. Pits often nucleate at specific microstructural features in the weld deposit. In welded 316L, these features include

WELDABILITY AND CORROSION STUDIES OF AISI 316L ELECTROPOLISHED TUBING by Sunniva R. Collins and Peter C. Williams

Table 2. Weldability Testing: Test Matrix of 2.0-in. diam. 316L Electropolished Tubing, wt % Heat No. Cr 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 16.8 Mo Si 2.1 Nb Ti Ni Mn C N Cu P S

0.4 0.011 0.01 10.22 1.82 0.012 0.052 0.3 0.026 0.011

16.92 2.06 0.34 0.014 0.01 12.69 1.16 0.024 0.044 0.28 0.031 0.009 17.19 2.05 0.36 0.025 0.01 12.38 1.81 0.014 0.051 0.23 0.029 0.007 16.88 2.09 0.41 0.015 0.01 12.92 1.25 0.022 0.04 0.41 0.028 0.005 17.4 2.11 0.5 0.01 0.01 12.37 1.07 0.018 0.018 0.22 0.026 0.007 17.03 2.11 0.41 0.016 0.01 13.05 1.31 0.024 0.041 0.26 0.031 0.005 17.54 2.26 0.49 0.012 0.01 12.42 1.09 0.022 0.011 0.23 0.03 0.006

-ferrite in an austenite matrix, or microsegregation of alloying elements in the dendritic weld microstructure. The optimum 316L formulation must be weldable, and maintain as much corrosion resistance as possible after the material is welded. With these issues in mind, the present research was performed to identify the optimum AISI 316L compositions for use in welded components in corrosive service. Experimental Procedure Weldability Study Samples from seven heats of commercially available 2.0 in. diam. AISI 316L electropolished tubing, with Cr eq/Ni eq ratios ranging from 1.38 to 1.68, were orbitally and autogenously welded using fixed weld parameters. After welding, ferrite was measured, and the welds were inspected for slag and appearance. The compositions of the seven heats are given in Table 2. These values were determined versus traceable 316 SS standards, by X-ray fluorescence (Cr, Mn, Mo, Ni, Si), optical emission spectroscopy (Nb, P, Ti, Cu), and high temperature combustion/inert gas fusion (C, S, N). Once the compositions were known, the Cr

eq, Ni eq, and Cr eq/Ni eq were calculated for each heat. Welds were performed using a Hobart CT 150-DC autogenous welder. The welding was done in a glove box using a 3/32-in. diam. thoriated tungsten electrode and a shield gas of 96% Ar-4% H2. The polarity was direct current electrode negative (DCEN), with a high current of 86 amps and a maintenance current of 47 amps. Pulse frequency was 6 Hz, with a pulse width of 50%. Weld speed was 2 rpm, or 6.3 in./min. The welds were visually examined and evaluated for presence of slag and cosmetic appearance, and were ranked accordingly. A Fischer Ferritscope was used to measure the maximum ferrite obtained in each weld. Corrosion Study Twenty-one heats of commercially available AISI 316L electropolished tubing with Cr eq/Ni eq varying from 1.2 to 1.8 and sizes from 0.25 in. to 2.0 in. in diameter were examined. Samples from each tube lot were orbitally and autogenously welded with welding parameters varied to achieve an acceptable weld, as defined by weld bead thickness and appearance. After welding, ferrite was

WELDABILITY AND CORROSION STUDIES OF AISI 316L ELECTROPOLISHED TUBING by Sunniva R. Collins and Peter C. Williams Table 3. Corrosion Testing: Test Matrix of 316L Electropolished Tubing, wt % Heat No. Cr Mo Si Nb Ti Ni Mn C N Cu P S OD, in. Wall thickness, in. 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.049 0.049 0.049 0.049 0.049 0.049 0.065 0.065 0.065 0.065 0.065

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

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

measured, and welded tube samples from each lot were evaluated for corrosion resistance using a standard ASTM electrochemical (critical pitting temperature) test method. The compositions of the twenty-one heats are given in Table 3, along with the tubing sizes of each heat. These values were determined versus traceable 316 SS standards,

by X-ray fluorescence (Cr, Mn, Mo, Ni, Si), optical emission spectroscopy (Nb, P, Ti, Cu), and high temperature combustion/inert gas fusion (C, S, N). Once the compositions were known, the Cr eq, Ni eq, and Cr eq/Ni eq were calculated for each heat. Table 4 shows typical welding parameters for each of the five tubing sizes.

WELDABILITY AND CORROSION STUDIES OF AISI 316L ELECTROPOLISHED TUBING by Sunniva R. Collins and Peter C. Williams

Table 4. Corrosion Testing: Typical Welding Parameters Tube Current, Travel, Heat Joules/in. OD, in. amps in./min. input, Joules 20 6.48 288 1334 0.250 21 5.87 439 1494 0.375 29 5.43 842 2322 0.500 42 4.36 3343 4244 1.000 39 3.38 8477 4974 2.000 Welding parameters were allowed to change in order to achieve an acceptable weld. Specimens from each heat were fabricated from tube stubs orbitally and autogenously welded using the Swagelok Weld System. The welding was performed using ceriated tungsten electrodes and a shield gas of 100% Ar. The electrochemical Critical Pitting Temperature (CPT) test (based on ASTM G 150) (16) to determine resistance to localized (pitting) corrosion was performed. The CPT test measures the temperature at which current density increases rapidly beyond a set limit at a set electrical potential. A NaCl solution is used, and the electrical potential is held constant in the passive region. Starting at a temperature of 0C, the temperature is raised slowly at a rate of 1C per minute until pitting occurs. The test solution was 3.56% NaCl made from reagent grade chemicals and DI (17 M) water. A temperature controller was employed, with its probe inserted so that the tip was touching the test specimen. A glass cooling coil circled the inside wall of the beaker. A chiller pumped coolant through the glass coil to provide cooling. Heating was provided by a heating mantle sized to fit snugly around the beaker. An immersible magnetic stirring plate and bar at the bottom of the beaker was used to reduce temperature gradients in the cell. The test cell was a 2 L glass beaker cut to 4.5 in. high and capped with a polyethylene cover. A three-

electrode set up was used consisting of the test specimen, an SCE reference electrode inserted in a Luggin probe, and two graphite rods as counter electrodes. Each welded specimen for CPT testing was made by orbitally and autogenously welding two 4-in. long tubes. The welded specimens were cut so that the weld was 0.5 in. from one end, and the total length of each specimen was 2.0 in. All samples were masked to isolate the test surface to the inner surface only. One end of the tube was coated with a non-reactive lacquer to cover 0.06 in. of the ID, the face on the end of the tube, and 0.25 in. of the OD. The outside of the tubing was masked with Platers tape, leaving 0.25 in. uncovered at the unlacquered end. Electrical contact was made here by connecting a coated copper wire to the tubing with a hose clamp. Approximately one inch of the specimen was submerged vertically in the solution, with the weld 0.5 in. from the submerged tube end, and equilibrated for 10 min. at 0 C. Following the initial delay, a potential of 700 mVSCE was applied to the sample while the temperature was raised one degree (C) per minute. Due to a delay in heating, this rate was not actually realized until 10 C. Current was measured continuously. The test was ended when the current density exceeded 100 A/cm2 for 60 s, which signified the onset of localized corrosion. The specimen was then removed from the cell and rinsed in DI water. All specimens were examined to identify the location of the pitting and to inspect for under-lacquer corrosion. Specimens that showed signs of under-lacquer corrosion were discarded. At least six valid repetitions were performed for each heat. The method used differed from ASTM G 150 in that a stir bar was used in place of nitrogen gas for agitation. Additionally, several data points that were <10 C, were reported as their exact value, not as <10 C as indicated in the standard.

WELDABILITY AND CORROSION STUDIES OF AISI 316L ELECTROPOLISHED TUBING by Sunniva R. Collins and Peter C. Williams

7 6 5 % Ferrite 4 3 2 1 0 1.35

Corrosion study heats

Weldability study heats

Table 6. Corrosion Testing: Calculated Values of Ni eq, Cr eq, and Cr eq/Ni eq; and Measured Maximum % Ferrite in Welds and CPT Heat Ni eq No. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 14.03 12.71 13.62 16.02 13.59 13.97 13.57 13.26 13.92 13.59 12.26 12.71 14.05 16.11 15.93 15.68 12.23 13.63 13.85 13.16 13.61 Cr eq Cr eq/Ni eq 21.63 21.12 20.28 21.78 20.90 21.45 20.51 21.24 21.00 20.09 20.27 21.05 20.99 21.78 21.81 21.91 20.72 20.67 20.51 20.37 21.14 1.54 1.66 1.49 1.36 1.54 1.54 1.51 1.60 1.51 1.48 1.65 1.66 1.49 1.35 1.37 1.40 1.69 1.52 1.48 1.55 1.55 % CPT, Ferrite, C, max avg 2.24 3.58 2.23 0.23 1.73 2.39 1.62 3.87 1.81 0.70 4.53 5.15 1.36 0.21 0.29 0.30 6.40 2.38 1.21 3.23 3.93 22.6 16.3 13.1 23.1 16.4 23.9 22.3 20.4 12.4 10.2 4.1 15.5 13.9 20.6 20.1 18.2 7.0 12.3 10.6 13.2 15.9

1.40 1.45

1.50

1.55 1.60

1.65 1.70

1.75

Cr eq/Ni eq

Figure 4 % Ferrite vs Cr eq/Ni eq

Prior to corrosion testing, a Fischer Ferritscope was used to measure the maximum % ferrite obtained in each weld. After corrosion testing was completed, the CPT results were compared to % ferrite and Cr eq/Ni eq. Results and Discussion The Cr eq/Ni eq ratio of Hammar and Svensson appears to be an excellent predictor of ferrite formation in autogenously welded 316L. Figure 4 shows maximum measured % ferrite versus Cr eq/Ni eq for the twenty-eight heats in both the weldability and corrosion studies. It is Table 5. Weldability Testing: Calculated Values of Ni eq, Cr eq, and Cr eq/Ni eq; and Measured Maximum % Ferrite in Welds Heat No. Ni eq Cr eq Cr eq/Ni eq % Ferrite, max 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 12.09 20.33 14.48 20.31 14.20 20.62 14.77 20.42 13.57 21.09 14.83 20.60 13.63 21.43 1.68 1.40 1.45 1.38 1.55 1.39 1.57 3.91 0.27 0.82 0.00 2.07 0.15 3.04

interesting to note that both sets of data are well predicted by Cr eq/Ni eq, despite differences in weld setup (different shielding gases, part rotation versus weld head rotation, different rotational speeds, etc.).

WELDABILITY AND CORROSION STUDIES OF AISI 316L ELECTROPOLISHED TUBING by Sunniva R. Collins and Peter C. Williams

Figure 5 Visual appearance of welds in 2.0 in. diam. 316L tubing arranged according to Cr eq/Ni eq From left: Heat 4 (1.38); Heat 6 (1.39); Heat 2 (1.40); Heat 3 (1.45); Heat 5 (1.55); Heat 7 (1.57); Heat 1 (1.68).
30 25 CPT, degree C 20 15 10 5 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 slope = -2.74 slope = -0.77

approximately Cr eq/Ni eq = 1.45. Slag formation is noted on the welds with Cr eq/Ni eq 1.45. Corrosion Study Table 6 lists the calculated values of Cr eq, Ni eq, and Cr eq/Ni eq, and measured maximum % ferrite and CPT, for Heats 8 through 28. Figure 6 shows CPT versus maximum % ferrite. Figure 7 shows CPT versus Cr eq/Ni eq. The corrosion resistance of welded 316L as measured by CPT falls off dramatically when % ferrite in the weld exceeds 3% max. This effect can be seen by comparing the slope of the linearized data for ferrite contents below and above 3%. Above 3% ferrite, the CPT drops off approximately 3.5 times as fast as below 3% ferrite. This same break point occurs when Cr eq/Ni eq exceeds 1.55. The drop off in CPT with increasing ferrite content (and increasing Cr eq/Ni eq) is also noted by the shift downward of the range of the data, as indicated by the dashed lines. Conclusions Slag forming elements, such as Al, Ca, Si, Zr, or Ti, have a higher maximum solubility in bcc ferrite than in fcc austenite. Therefore, a 316L composition that solidifies in the ferritic-austenitic mode will show a greatly decreased propensity for the formation of slag on the weld.

% Ferrite

Figure 6 Critical Pitting Temperature vs % Ferrite

30 25 CPT, degree C 20 15 10 5 0 1.35 slope = -67.2 slope = -20.9

1.40

1.45

1.50

1.55

1.60

1.65

1.70

1.75

Cr eq/Ni eq

Figure 7 Critical Pitting Temperature vs Cr eq/Ni eq

Weldability Study Table 5 lists the calculated values of Cr eq, Ni eq, and Cr eq/Ni eq, and measured maximum % ferrite, for Heats 1 through 7. Figure 5 shows photographs of welds from Heats 1 through 7, arranged according to Cr eq/Ni eq. From visual inspection, a change in the morphology of the weld is noted at

WELDABILITY AND CORROSION STUDIES OF AISI 316L ELECTROPOLISHED TUBING by Sunniva R. Collins and Peter C. Williams

Solidification mode can be predicted using a ratio of the Hammar and Svensson equivalents: Cr eq = Cr + 1.37 Mo + 1.5 Si + 2 Nb + 3 Ti Ni eq = Ni + 0.31 Mn + 22 C + 14.2 N + Cu Acceptable autogenous welds in 316L have a mainly ferritic-austenitic solidification mode (Cr eq/Ni eq 1.45 and Cr eq/Ni eq 2.0). Acceptable welds have minimal slag, and are very slightly magnetic, indicating some retained ferrite.

3. N. Suutala, Solidification of Austenitic Stainless Steels, Third Scandinavian Symposium in Materials Science, 20-21 June 1983, Oulu, Finland; Acta Univ. Oulu, C 26, Metallurg. 4, 1983, pp. 53-60. 4. Binary Alloy Phase Diagrams, T. B. Massalski, Ed., American Society for Metals, Metals Park, OH, 1986. 5. N. Suutala, Effect of Manganese and Nitrogen on the Solidification Mode in Austenitic Stainless Steel Welds, Met. Trans. A, Vol. 13, Dec. 1982, pp. 2121-2130. 6. O. Hammar and U. Svensson, in Solidification and Casting of Metals, The Metals Society, London, 1979, pp. 401-410. 7. N. Suutala and T. Moisio, Use of Chromium and Nickel Equivalents in Considering Solidification Phenomena in Austenitic Stainless Steels, in Solidification Technology in the Foundry and Casthouse, The Metals Society, London, 1983, pp. 310-314. 8. J. C. Borland and R. D. Younger, Br. Weld. J., Vol. 7, 1960, p. 22. 9. F. C. Hull, Proc. Amer. Soc. Testing Mater., Vol. 60, 1959, p. 667. 10. W. F. Savage, D. J. Duquette, Localized Corrosion and Stress Corrosion Cracking Behavior of Austenitic Stainless Steel Weldments Containing Retained Ferrite: Annual Progress Report, Report COO-2462-6, Renssalaer Polytechnic Institute, Mar. 1980, 9 pp. 11. R. Morach and P. Ginter, Influence of Low -Ferrite Content on the Corrosion Behaviour of Stainless Steels, Stainless Steel World, Sep. 1997, pp. 55-59. 12. N. Suutala, Effect of Solidification Conditions on the Solidification Mode in Austenitic Stainless Steel Welds, Met. Trans. A, Vol. 14, Feb. 1983, pp. 191-197.

The Cr eq/Ni eq ratio based on the Hammar and Svensson equivalents is an excellent predictor of maximum ferrite formation in 316L autogenous welds. The corrosion resistance of welded 316L as measured by CPT falls off dramatically when % ferrite in the weld exceeds 3% max. This same break point occurs when Cr eq/Ni eq exceeds 1.55.

Acknowledgments This research was supported by Swagelok, and involved the participation of over thirty associates. Their contributions are acknowledged, with appreciation for their thorough and careful work. In particular, the efforts of Brian DeForce, Todd Johns, John Wetshtein, Clara Swope, Joe Brookover, and Mike Chom are noted. The results of these studies form the basis for a patent pending. References 1. Specification for 316L Stainless Steel Bar, Extruded Shapes, and Plate for Components Used in High Purity Semiconductor Manufacturing Applications, SEMI Standard F20-95, SEMI International, Mountain View, CA, 1996, 3 pp. 2. Guideline for Welding Stainless Steel Tubing for Semiconductor Applications, SEMI Standard F3-94, SEMI International, Mountain View, CA, 1996, 5 pp.

WELDABILITY AND CORROSION STUDIES OF AISI 316L ELECTROPOLISHED TUBING by Sunniva R. Collins and Peter C. Williams

13. A. Garner, The Effect of Autogenous Welding on Chloride Pitting Corrosion in Austenitic Stainless Steels, Corrosion, Vol. 35, Mar. 1979, pp. 108-114. 14. P. I. Marshall and T. G. Gootch, Effect of Composition on Corrosion Resistance of High-Alloy Austenitic Stainless Steel Weld Metals, Corrosion, Vol. 49, June 1993, pp. 514526.

15. N. Suutala and M. Kurkela, Localized Corrosion Resistance of High Alloy Austenitic Stainless Steels and Welds, Proc. Conf. Stainless Steels 84, Goteberg, 3-4 Sept. 1984; Institute of Metals, London, 1985, pp. 240-247. 16. ASTM G 150, Standard Test Method for Electrochemical Critical Pitting Temperature Testing of Stainless Steel, in Annual Book of ASTM Standards, ASTM, West Conshohonken, PA, 1998.

2000 Swagelok Company