ISSN (Print) : 0974-6846

Indian Journal of Science and Technology, Vol 9(39), DOI: 10.17485/ijst/2016/v9i39/101403, October 2016 ISSN (Online) : 0974-5645

Comparative Evaluation of Impact Strength of

Dissimilar Metal Weld between T91 and 304SS
Prepared by SMAW and GTAW Techniques
Narinder Pal Singh Dhaliwal1*, Rutash Mittal2, Salwinder Gill1, Paras Khullar1
1
Mechanical Engineering Department, Chandigarh University, Gharuan, Mohali 140413, Punjab, India;
nps_dhaliwal@yahoo.com, salwinder53@gmail.com, erparaskhullar@gmail.com
2
Mechanical Engineering Department, MIMIT, Malout - 152107, Punjab, India; rutashmittal@gmail.com

Abstract
Objectives: The main objective was to evaluate the better joint between dissimilar metals T91 (ferritic) and 304SS
(austenitic) prepared by SMAW and GTAW in accordance to their impact strength. Methods/Statistical Analysis:
Welding joints between T91 and 304SS were developed using two welding consumables 308L and 309L by SMAW and
GTAW respectively. 4 plates of dimension 175mm x 100mm x 6mm were used for welding each of 304SS and T91. Total 9
specimens were prepared according to ASTM A370 standards (55mmX10mmX6mm) for Charpy impact testing, three each
from weld bead, HAZ 304SS and HAZ T91 each from SMAW and GTAW welded plates. Findings: Impact strength testing was
done with help of Charpy V-notch toughness machine. The standard specimens for Charpy impact testing was placed in the
machine and values of impact strength were recorded one after another. As per results, the average impact strength of the
weldment prepared by GTAW technique is marginally more as compared to SMAW technique for all sections. The impact
strength of the GTAW specimen increases from 304SS HAZ to T91 HAZ passing through the weld metal. The best impact
strength is obtained at T91 HAZ of GTAW joint which is 232.67 joules. This increased value of impact strength may be due
to movement of carbon particles and formation of carbides and intermetallic. The enhancement in the impact strength is
encountered due to increase in micro-hardness which is also published by various authors in the characterization of the
weldments. The average impact strength of the weldment prepared by GTAW technique is more as compared to SMAW
technique. The dissimilar metal joint prepared by GTAW technique is better joint in accordance to its impact strength.
Improvement/Applications: Dissimilar metal joints between austenitic stainless steel and ferritic stainless steel are
widely used in various fields like nuclear power plants, steam generators of power plants etc.

Keywords: Dissimilar Metal Welding, Gas Tungsten Arc Welding (GTAW), Impact Toughness Comparison, Shielded Metal
Arc Welding (SMAW)

1. Introduction
Dissimilar metal joint is to compile various metal prop-
erties in order to reduce costs of material and increase
the equipment performance. Dissimilar weldments have
numerous potential applications in the oil, gas, nuclear,
aerospace, chemical, electronics and fossil fuel fired
power generation industries due to its profit in economy
and also because of better performance of two differ-
ent metals, like corrosion resistance and strength in a
single component. In1, Corrosion resistance along with
outstanding mechanical properties makes stainless steel
for numerous applications in engineering applications.
Dissimilar metal joints between austenitic stainless steel
and ferritic stainless steel are widely used in various fields
like nuclear power plants, steam generators of power
plants etc2.
Welding is a process of achieving complete coales-
cence by joining two or more pieces of the same or

*Author for correspondence

 Comparative Evaluation of Impact Strength of Dissimilar Metal Weld between T91 and 304SS Prepared by SMAW and GTAW
Techniques

different materials. In3, this is the only method of devel-
oping monolithic structures and it is often accomplished
by the use of heat and or pressure. In4, in present study
two types of welding processes were used i.e. GTAW and
SMAW. GTAW, also known as Tungsten Inert Gas (TIG)
welding. GTAW is a process which melts after heating
metals and joins them with help of an arc developed
between the metals and a non-consumable tungsten elec-
trode. In5, SMAW which is also known asmanual metal
arc welding (MMA or MMAW), stick welding or flux
shielded arc welding, is a manualweldingmethod which
uses a flux coated consumableelectrodeto build the weld.
In6 , from a welding power supply analternating or direct
electric current, is supplied to build an arc between the
metal and electrode to bejoined7.
Generally, stainless steels consist of 10-20% chro-
mium as the main alloying element because of high
corrosion resistance. Steel is 200 times more corrosion
resistant than mild steel and it contains about 11% chro-
mium. In8, present study austenitic and ferritic stainless
steels were used to draw comparison of impact strength.
Austenitic stainless steels have face-centered cubic crys-
tal structure which is austenitic crystalline structure. 70%
of total stainless steel production consists of austenitic,
that contains about 0.15% of carbon and minimum 16%
chromium and certain amount of manganese and nickel
to retain its structure at different temperatures. Ferritic
stainless9 steels have better engineering properties as
compare to austenitic steels, but less corrosion resistant,
because of the lower amount of nickel and chromium
Table 1. Chemical composition of T91
Component C Cr
content. These steels are also comparatively less expen-
sive. They consist of about 10.5% to 27% chromium and
very less amount of nickel but grades contain lead. Mostly
these steels have molybdenum but some contains alumi-
num or titanium. 18Cr-2Mo, 26Cr-1Mo, 29Cr-4Mo, and
29Cr-4Mo-2Ni are common ferritic grades9.
2. Materials and Methods
In this study, T91 (ferritic stainless steel) and 304SS (aus-
tenitic stainless steel) were used to fabricate the joints.
T91 is used in modern boilers where the steam from
super heater is about 570 C to 600 C and pressures range
is from 170 bar to 230 bar. This means, the last stages of
the super heater and the pipes carrying the steam to the
turbine should withstand these extreme conditions10.
This requires those materials which have very high
strength properties, which do not deteriorate with time,
and should be creep resistant. T91 is such a ferritic alloy
steel that meets these conditions. This material has been
in use for the last two decades successfully in power plant
service. It is also called 9Cr-1Mo steel because it contains
9% chromium and up to 1% molybdenum. 304SS, from
among all the types of austenitic stainless steels, the type
304 is widely used in the various industries because of
high corrosion resistance, high strength and good weld
ability properties. In11, Type 304 (18-8) is a type of austen-
itic steel which consists of a minimum of 18% chromium,
8% nickel along with 0.08% carbon. This type is corro-
sion and oxidation resistant because of 18% chromium.
Fe Mn Ni P S Si

Wt. % 0.114 8.29 89.28 0.569 0.118 0.009 0.010 0.170

Table 2. Chemical composition of 304SS

Component C Cr Fe Mn Ni P S Si

Wt. % 0.0434 18.69 66.45 1.76 7.77 0.061 0.0266 0.381

Table 3. Chemical composition of electrodes

Material C Mn P Si Cr Ni Mo Cu Fe
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
308L for 0.04 0.5- 0.04 0.9 18-21 9-11 0.75 0.75 Rem.
SMAW 2.5
309L for 0.04 0.5- 0.04 0.9 22-25 12-14 0.75 0.75 Rem.
GTAW 2.5

2 Vol 9 (39) | October 2016 | www.indjst.org Indian Journal of Science and Technology
 Narinder Pal Singh Dhaliwal, Rutash Mittal, Salwinder Gill, Paras Khullar

In 12, 304 stainless steel has high-temperature applications

because of lower carbon content which helps to minimize
carbide precipitation. In13, Austenitic stainless steels, type
18-10 have high resistance to corrosion due to they have
tremendous applications in power engineering. In14 The
chemical composition of the materials used is given in
Tables 1 and 2. The filler metal in the form of the elec-
trode is added in making of the joint. In15, the chemical
composition of the filler material used in SMAW and
GTAW is entailed in Table 3. In16, Welding joint between Figure 2. Plates after SMAW.
T91 (ferritic) and 304SS (austenitic) was developed using
SMAW and GTAW. Two welding consumables 308L and
309L were used for developing the dissimilar weld using
shielded metal arc welding and gas tungsten arc welding
respectively. 4 plates of dimension 175mm x 100mm x
6mm were used for welding each of 304SS and T91. Two
dissimilar welding joints were prepared each by SMAW
and GTAW techniques.
V groove was made at 55 of joining the plates with
the help of a shaper machine. Two types of welding elec-
trodes E308L and E309L were used to weld the joint for Figure 3. Plates after GTAW.
SMAW and GTAW respectively. Terminology of single V
butt joint is shown in Figure 1. After placing the plates on
a levelled surface welding operation was done to make V
butt joints by SMAW and GTAW techniques. Plates after
welding are shown in Figures 2 and 3. According to ASTM
A370, the standard specimen size for Charpy impact test-
ing is 55mmX10mmX6mm as shown in the Figure 4. In
17
, Total 9 specimens were prepared three each from weld
bead, HAZ 304SS and HAZ T91 each from SMAW and
Figure 4. Standard Charpy impact test specimen dimensions.
GTAW welded plates as shown in Figure 5. After that
(All dimensions in mm)
impact testing was done on them at Charpy impact tester
as shown in Figure 6.

Root face= 2mm, Root gap= 2mm, Included angle= 55

Figure 1. Terminology of single V butt joint. Figure 5. Charpy test specimens.

Vol 9 (39) | October 2016 | www.indjst.org Indian Journal of Science and Technology 3
 Comparative Evaluation of Impact Strength of Dissimilar Metal Weld between T91 and 304SS Prepared by SMAW and GTAW
Techniques

Table 5. Charpy V- Notch impact test results (Joules)

of GTAW
GTAW WELDING SPECIMEN
SPECIMEN DESCRIPTION VALUE AVG
NO. (JOULES) VALUE

1 GTAW HAZ T91 208 232.67

2 256
3 234
1 GTAW WELD 198 213.33
2 BEAD 218
3 224
Figure 6. Charpy V-notch toughness machine. 1 GTAW HAZ 304SS 230 218.67
2 218
3. Results and Discussions 3 208

Impact strength testing was done with help of Charpy

V-notch toughness machine. The standard specimens for
Charpy impact testing was placed in the machine and val-
ues of impact strength were recorded one after another.
Different values of impact toughness recorded are shown
in tabular form as in Tables 4,5.

Table 4. Charpy V-Notch impact test results (Joules)

of SMAW
SMAW WELDING SPECIMEN
SPECIMEN DESCRIPTION VALUE AVG
NO. (JOULES) VALUE
1 SMAW HAZ T91 230 221.33
Figure 7. Specimens after Impact Testin.
2 218
3 216
1 SMAW WELD 162 140.67
BEAD
2 98
3 162
1 SMAW HAZ 182 180.67
304SS
2 182
3 178

The average values of impact strength at different

sections of weldment obtained from GTAW technique
are comparatively more than that of SMAW technique.
Various specimens after impact testing are shown in
Figure 7. The average values of impact strength of both
combinations are plotted as shown in Figures 8, 9,10. Figure 8. Impact strength of SMAW specimens.

4 Vol 9 (39) | October 2016 | www.indjst.org Indian Journal of Science and Technology
 Narinder Pal Singh Dhaliwal, Rutash Mittal, Salwinder Gill, Paras Khullar
Figure 9. Impact strength of GTAW specimens.
Figure 10. Comparison of Impact strength of SMAW &
GTAW specimens.
4. Conclusions
The present work was carried out to study the impact
toughness comparison of dissimilar metal weldment con-
sisting T91 (ferritic stainless steel) and 304SS (austenitic
stainless steel) prepared by shielded metal arc welding
Vol 9 (39) | October 2016 | www.indjst.org
and gas tungsten arc welding by the use of 308L and 309L
welding electrodes respectively.
As per results, the average impact strength of the
weldment prepared by GTAW technique is marginally
more as compared to SMAW technique for all sections.
The impact strength of the GTAW specimen increases
from 304SS HAZ to T91 HAZ passing through the weld
metal. The best impact strength is obtained at T91 HAZ of
GTAW joint which is 232.67 joules. This increased value
of impact strength may be due to movement of carbon
particles and formation of carbides and intermetallic. The
enhancement in the impact strength is encountered due
to increase in micro-hardness which is also published
by various authors in the characterization of the weld-
ments18. The average impact strength of the weldment
prepared by GTAW technique is more as compared to
SMAW technique. The dissimilar metal joint prepared
by GTAW technique is better joint in accordance to its
impact strength.
5. References
1. Kobelco. Welding today, why dissimilar welding is needed
and how to select proper filler metals. The International
Operational Department, Welding Company, Kobe Steel
Ltd. 2002; 5:110.
2. Parmar RS. Welding processes and technology. Khanna
Publishers, New Delhi; 2012.
3. The American Welding Society [Internet]. [cited 2016].
Available from: www.aws.com.
4. B.I.S standard, No. 813-1986 (Revised), Indian Standards
(BIS) on Welding [Internet]. [cited 1986]. Available from:
https://law.resource.org/pub/in/bis/S10/is.813.1986.pdf.
5. International Organization for Standards [Internet].
Available from: www.iso.com.
6. Funderburk SR. Key concepts in welding engineering.
Welding Innovation. 1997; 14(2):12.
7. Kakani SL, Kakani A. Material Science. 3rd (Edn), New age
international Publishers: India; 2016.
8. Kou S. Welding Metallurgy. 2nd (Edn), John Wiley & Sons:
US; 2003.
9. Steel grades, properties and global standards [Internet].
[cited 2015 Nov 12]. Available from: http://steel-grades.
com.hotsited.com.
10. Mittal R, Sidhu BS. Micro structural and mechanical
characterization of different zones of T91/T22 weldment.
International Journal of Surface Engineering and Materials
Technology. 2014 JulDec; 4(5):459.
11. Schaeffer AL. Selection of austenitic electrodes for welding
dissimilar metals. Welding Journals. 1947; 26(10):60120.
Indian Journal of Science and Technology 5
 Comparative Evaluation of Impact Strength of Dissimilar Metal Weld between T91 and 304SS Prepared by SMAW and GTAW
Techniques
12. ASTM E23. Standard test methods for notched bar
impact testing of metallic materials [Internet]. [cited
2016 Apr 06]. Available from: http://mhriau.ac.ir/_
DouranPortal/Documents/ASTM%20E23%20(impact%20
test)_20160406_233024.pdf.
13. Kah DH, Dickinson DW. Weld ability of Ferritic Stainless
Steels. Supplement to the Welding Journal. 1981 Aug:18.
14. Jang C, Lee J, Kim JS, Jin JE. Mechanical property variation
within Inconel 82/182 dissimilar metal weld between low
alloy steel and 316 stainless steel. International Journal of
Pressure Vessels and Piping. 2008 Sep; 85(9):63546.
15. Arivazhagan N, Singh S, Prakash S, Reddy GM.
Investigation on AISI 304 austenitic stainless steel to AISI
4140 low alloy steels dissimilar joints by gas tungsten arc,
6 Vol 9 (39) | October 2016 | www.indjst.org
electron beam and friction welding. Materials and Design.
2011 May; 32(5):303650.
16. Karthik G, Karuppuswamy P, Amarnath V. Comparative
evaluation of mechanical properties and micro structural
characteristics of 304 stainless steel weldments in TIG and
SMAW welding processed. International Journal of Current
Engineering and Technology. 2014 Feb; S2:17.
17. Timofeev BT, Karzov GP, Gorbakony AA, Nikolaev YK.
Corrosion and mechanical strength of welded joints of
downcomers for RBMK reactors. International Journal of
Pressure Vessels and Piping. 1999 Apr; 76(5):299307.
18. Lundin CD, Lee CH, Menon R, Osorio V. Weld ability eval-
uations of modified 316 and 347 Austenitic stainless steels.
Supplement to the Welding Journal. 1988 Feb:3546.
Indian Journal of Science and Technology