WESLDINC RESEARCH
SUPPLEMENT TO THE WELDING JOURNAL, JULY 1973
Sponsored by the American Welding Society and the Welding Research Council
The Ferrite Content of Austenitic
Stainless Steel Weld Metal
The effect of nitrogen pickup in GTAW and
GMA W and the need for better correlation
between calculated and measured
ferrite content leads to a revised constitution
diagram and an evaluation of experimental
and statistical error.
BY C. J. LONG AND W. T. DeLONG
W. T. DeLONG is Vice President and
C. J. LONG is Welding Engineer,
Teledyne McKay, York, Pennsylvania.
Paper was presented at the 54th
AWS Annual Meeting held in Chicago
during April 2-6, 1973.
W E L D I N G R E S E A R C H S U P P L E M E N T ! 281-s
ABSTRACT. The possibility of
nitrogen incursion into the arc and
weld pool must be considered in any
application where austenitic stainless
weld metal ferrite content is im-
portant. This is especially true in gas
metal-arc welding (GMAW) and gas
tungsten-arc welding (GTAW) where
turbulence in the arc shielding gas
flow can admit enough nitrogen to ap-
preciably reduce the ferrite content of
the deposit. Calculations of ferrite us-
ing filler metal chemistry and either
the DeLong or Schaeffler diagrams
will usually show a higher ferrite con-
tent than exists in the deposit, be-
cause nitrogen is picked up by the
weld metal during welding.
If the Schaeffler Diagram were the
only calculation tool available the
nitrogen-caused differences in ferrite
between filler metal and weld metal
would often be difficult to explain be-
cause Schaeffler did not include a
factor for nitrogen in his diagram.
However, use of the actual deposit
analysis and the DeLong Diagram,
which takes account of the strong
austenitizing effect of nitrogen, can
generally explain the significant
differences observed when high
nitrogen pickup has occurred.
Knowledge of the effect of nitrogen
and the magnetic measurement of
weld deposit ferrite can be of signi-
ficant help in qualifying GMAW and
GTAW procedures and operators to
minimize pickup of the element and
thereby to provide consistent and ac-
ceptable weld metal ferrite.
The DeLong Diagram has been
revised to convert it to the WRC Fer-
rite Number system and to reflect in-
formation obtained in the study of the
GTAW and GMAW deposits de-
scribed in this paper.
Comparisons between the
calculated and the measured ferrite
contents are made for both the
Schaeffler and the revised DeLong
Diagrams. On Types 308, 308L and
347 the diagrams are essentially
equal in performance except where
high nitrogen levels are involved, in
which case the DeLong Diagram is
better. For the more highly alloyed
Types 316, 316L and 309 the Schaef-
fler Diagram understates the ferrite
content so the DeLong Diagram is
better for these types.
The sources and magnitudes of
 EXPANDED SCHAEFFLER CONSTITUTION DIAGRAM
FOR STAINLESS STEEL WELD METAL
18 19 20
CHROMIUM EQUIVALENT = £Cr+§Mo + 1.5 x-g-Si + 0.5
Fig. 1 — Schaeffler diagram
several variables in the measure-
ment and calculation of ferrite are
considered, as well as the overall
variation between them. Allowances
for receiving inspection are recom-
m e n d e d to p r o v i d e adequate
tolerances for variations in ferrite con-
tent between pads.
Measured ferrite is r e c o m m e n d e d
over calculated for specification pur-
poses.
Background
The Literature
The effectiveness of the presence
of a small but controlled amount of
delta ferrite in preventing cracking of
austenitic stainless steel weld d e -
posits is well known. Types in which
this effect is taken advantage of in-
clude among others 308, 308L, 309,
347, 318 and sometimes 316 and
316L and 317 and 317L.
In cooling from the molten state
austenitic stainless weld metal of nor-
mal carbon content solidifies first as a
mixture of delta ferrite and austenite;
most of the ferrite subsequently
transforms to austenite as the de-
282-s I J U L Y 1 973
21 22 23 24
posit cools through a temperature
range just below the delta ferrite
region. The transformation is time-de-
pendent — i.e., the ferrite does not in-
stantaneously transform, but does so
progressively over a short period of
time — and theoretically the trans-
formation could be avoided almost
completely if the deposit could be in-
stantly quenched from the just-frozen
state to black heat, which would re-
sult in a much higher percentage of
ferrite in a Type 308 deposit, for ex-
ample. Similarly, if the cooling rate
from the molten state is rapid enough,
it is possible to supercool through the
t e m p e r a t u r e zone in w h i c h delta
ferrite f o r m s and to transform d i -
rectly into austenite. Practically
speaking, however, the final amount
of delta ferrite in virtually all weld
metal depends only to a rather minor
degree upon the cooling rate.
The amount of ferrite in stainless
weld deposits can be determined in
any of several ways. Metallographic
e x a m i n a t i o n of the d e p o s i t c a n
provide an indication of the approxi-
mate ferrite content in terms of area
25 26 27 28
x
"rjCb
distribution. However, besides being
c u m b e r s o m e , such a m e t h o d re-
quires considerable care to be sure
that the section or sections studied
give a true picture of the volumetric
ferrite distribution. Also, the etchant
selected and the degree of etch have
been shown to be among the several
variables in procedure and technique
which can influence rather s u b -
stantially the values obtained. 1
In 1949 Schaeffler published his
Constitution Diagram For Stainless
Steel Weld Metal, 2 which provided a
tool for calculating weld deposit fer-
rite c o n t e n t b a s e d on c h e m i c a l
analysis by graphically combining ef-
fects of the austenitizers nickel, car-
bon and manganese and the fer-
ritizers c h r o m i u m , m o l y b d e n u m ,
silicon and columbium; this diagram
gave a figure for ferrite content which
was stated to be accurate to ± 4
volume percent (hereinafter referred
to as %) ferrite for many of the c o m -
mon austenitic weld deposits under
cooling conditions present in field
weldments. An expanded portion of
the Schaeffler Diagram is shown as
Fig. 1; this diagram has been widely
accepted and very useful because
calculated ferrite is rather easily de-
termined.
In 1956 DeLong et al3 expanded on
Schaeffler's work and published a
modified Constitution Diagram For
Stainless Weld Metal (Fig. 2*) which
added an austenitizing factor for
nitrogen and modified the location of
the lines for the more highly alloyed
grades such as 309, 316 and 317 at
normal nitrogen levels. The modifi-
cation increased the amount of fer-
rite predicted over that predicted by
the Schaeffler Diagram, and sub-
stantially improved the agreement be-
tween the predicted and measured
values for covered electrode de-
posits of the more highly alloyed
grades. The DeLong Diagram had im-
proved accuracy, stated to be ±2%
ferrite, especially for deposits con-
taining higher than normal nitrogen.
Of course to use either the Schaef-
fler or the DeLong Diagram the
chemistry of the weld deposit must be
'Figure 2 as presented has been revised to
show the WRC Ferrite Numbers and also
to incorporate the revisions discussed
later in this paper.
CONSTITUTION DIAGRAM FOR STAINLESS STEEL WELD METAL
18 19
CHROMIUM EQUIVALENT = %Cr + %Mo + 1.5 X %Si + 0.5 X %Cb
Fig. 2 — DeLong diagram
rather accurately known. A more di-
rect measuring technique is the use of
an appropriate magnetic measuring
instrument such as an Aminco-Bren-
ner Magne-Gage, which measures
the magnetic attraction between the
weld metal and a permanent magnet.
Use of a properly calibrated Magne-
Gage has been recommended by
DeLong3 and others 456 and the instru-
ment is widely used for measuring
ferrite in weld deposits. The DeLong
Diagram was based not upon metal-
lographic examination of welds, as
was the Schaeffler Diagram, but upon
magnetic determinations of ferrite
content of over 600 weld metal pads
by use of a Magne-Gage calibrated as
described in DeLong's 1956 paper.3
There has in the past been signi-
ficant controversy in welding circles
as to whether what welding people
call 5% ferrite is that amount or close
to it or is significantly more or less.
Simpkinson5 has shown that different
particle sizes of iron in bakelite, or dif-
ferent orientations of iron flakes in
bakelite, produce substantially dif-
ferent calibration curves with a
Magne-Gage and its number 3
magnet. Many publications78-9 show-
ed that different magnetic measuring
instruments or different calibrations
20 21 22 23 24
W E L D I N G RESEARCH S U PPLE M E NT | 283-s
of those instruments did produce dif-
ferent ferrite readings on a given
specimen. These readings could
range from 3 to 9% on samples which
we would rate as 5%, and from 7 to
19% on samples which we would rate
as 10%. The variations were trace-
able to two primary problems. The
first was that no scientifically accu-
rate method of precisely establishing
the quantity of ferrite present in
various unknowns had been pro-
posed and broadly accepted.10 The
second was that too many in-
dependently calibrated magnetic in-
struments and/or curves to be used
with such instruments had evolved
over the years, often with appreci-
able conflict with one another in the
ferrite values reported.1-7-89
Standardization of magnetic
measuring instrument calibration in
the U.S. has recently been accom-
plished by the High Alloys Com-
mittee of the Welding Research Coun-
cil through the Advisory Sub-
committee on Welding Stainless
Steels.10 This WRC calibration pro-
cedure includes the use of the term
Ferrite Number (FN) instead of the
term percent ferrite. For a given
specimen, the Ferrite Number, par-
ticularly if it is 10 or less, represents a
by William T. DeLong
revised January, 1973

Table 1 — Conversion — Old McKay %
Ferrite (as measured with a Magne-Gage)
to WRC Ferrite Number (FN)
Old New
%F FN
Up to 6.0 Same as old %
7.0 7.2
8.0 8.5
9.0 9.8
10.0 11.1
11.0 12.4
12.0 13.7
13.0 15.0
14.0 16.2
g o o d average of the ferrite per-
centage figures which would be de-
termined for the specimen by present
U.S. and world methods of measuring
delta ferrite, based on round robins
conducted by the WRC Advisory Sub-
committee and the International In-
stitute of Welding Subcommission II-
Q 8.9.10 | n V j e w 0 f t h e WRC procedure
we have presented all experimental
data in this paper in terms of FN and
much of the discussion herein is also
in FN terms. For reference, Fig. 2 and
Table 1 both present a comparison
of the percentage figures formerly
used by our l a b o r a t o r y with the
equivalent Ferrite Number for each.
Manufacture and Use of
Covered Electrodes
Fortunately from a practical view-
point, most major U.S. covered weld-
ing electrode producers have set up
their practices in electrode manu-
facture so that the differences be-
tween them have not prevented the
practical use of ferrite in the general
range of 4 to 9% to provide crack-free
weld deposits. If converted from our
prior practice, which generally cor-
responds to the practices of most
U.S. m a n u f a c t u r e r s , 3 t h i s is e s -
sentially 4 to 10 on the WRC Ferrite
Number scale. Round robin data 8
indicate that the major producers in
the U.S. who participated in the pro-
gram were within approximately ± 0 . 5
FN of each other at a 5 Ferrite Num-
ber level and ± 1 FN of each other at a
10 Ferrite Number level, substantially
FERRITE
MEASURED
IN THIS AREA
- MIN AS J
WELDEDE
jfMIN
r»-1 APPROX --T^L
Fig. 3 — Standard ferrite pad
284-s I J U L Y 1 973
below both the spread found in users'
calibrations and the total world-wide
spread found in the survey. This rea-
sonable level of agreement has been
attained in part through the inter-
change of weld metal specimens with
specific assigned ferrite values, and
the subsequent use of the specimens
as s t a n d a r d s for c o n s t r u c t i o n of
Magne-Gage calibration curves, and
in part through use of either the
DeLong or Schaeffler Constitution
Diagrams. It should be remembered
that despite the fact that not all pro-
ducers have agreed precisely on the
percent ferrite in any given weld de-
posit, the agreement has been close
enough so that these widely used
tools for d e t e r m i n i n g calculated
and/or measured weld metal ferrite
have been eminently successful in
providing crack-free stainless steel
weld deposits for 20 years or more.
Many users, including the govern-
ment, require in some of their pur-
chase s p e c i f i c a t i o n s that c o v e r e d
electrodes of Types 308 and 308L and
other f e r r i t e - c o n t a i n i n g austenitic
stainless types produce undiluted
weld metal containing a particular
range of ferrite, often from 4 % to 9%
or from 5% to 15%, as determined
with either one of the abovemen-
tioned constitution diagrams or a
Magne-Gage or other specified m a g -
netic measuring instrument such as
a Severn Ferrite Indicator. This ap-
proach to ferrite control in covered
electrode stainless weld metal has
been successful primarily because
welding practices and techniques with
covered electrodes have over the
years become generally reasonably
uniform, so that a deposit produced
by a trained welder in the electrode
manufacturer's test lab according to
standardized procedures will be gen-
erally equivalent to one produced by a
similarly trained welder in the pur-
chaser's facility according to the same
p r o c e d u r e s . Also, the a m o u n t of
ferrite measured in such deposits with
a Magne-Gage is reasonably close to
the amount calculated f r o m the
DeLong Diagram, for example, using
the covered electrode deposit
chemistry, because as mentioned
above the Magne-Gage calibration
8 WELD LAYERS
(PASSES)
MINIMUM BUILDUP-
-TYPE 30I, 302 OR
304 STAINLESS
PLATE.
-3"APPROX-
curves have generally been estab-
lished based on the DeLong or
Schaeffler Diagrams.
Use of Bare Stainless
Electrodes and Rods
In the bare stainless area, attempts
have been made to provide deposit
ferrite control similar to that used with
covered electrodes. These attempts
have not been entirely successful,
partly because variations in GTAW
and GMAW procedures have made it
difficult to standardize in a manner
which will produce ferrite readings
agreeable to a m a j o r i t y of f a b r i -
cators. The result has been that few
p u r c h a s e s p e c i f i c a t i o n s for bare
stainless filler metals have in the past
included any ferrite requirement; the
apparent feeling of many users is that
when the chemical requirements are
met the deposit will be satisfactory
from the ferrite standpoint. One ex-
ception to this approach is U.S. Gov-
ernment Specification MIL-E-19933D,
which requires that undiluted weld
metals of the 308, 309 and 347
families contain from 4 to 9% ferrite
as measured on the top surface of a
standard pad (Fig. 3) using a cali-
brated Magne-Gage.
Ferrite in G T A W a n d G M A W
Deposits — the Nitrogen P r o b l e m
When we first considered the MIL-
E-19933D ferrite requirements years
ago, we used ferrite calculated from
bare electrode chemistry by the
DeLong Diagram to predict whether
the ferrite in a standard ferrite pad
would fall within the desired range; in
predicting, we assumed a minimum
change in analysis from electrode to
deposit and about 0.5 per cent loss in
ferrite, the latter assumption being
based on our feeling that cooling
rates in the low-mass GMAW stan-
dard pads were somewhat slower
than the cooling rates typical of most
production welds.
Our experience indicated that it
was difficult to produce GMAW de-
posits with ferrite contents within the
predicted ranges; given a heat with
10% calculated ferrite, normally skill-
ed semiautomatic welders following
the MIL p r o c e d u r a l r e q u i r e m e n t s
could produce deposits containing
anywhere from 0 to 9% Magne-Gage
ferrite. Under such circumstances a
deposit from an ER 308L electrode
with 14% calculated ferrite, for exam-
ple, might meet the MIL-E-19933D re-
quirements when prepared by one
welder but might be outside those re-
quirements when prepared under
nominally equivalent conditions by
another welder.
Because of the above described
difficulties in predicting and repro-
ducing ferrite measurements, a study
 Table 2 — Ferrite and Chemistry Variations from Electrode to Weld Deposit
Electrode: 99% Argon — 1 % Oxygen Shielding Gas
C Mr,
Item
1. Electrode .074 1.63
2. Weld deposit, .063 1.52
first check
3. Weld deposit, .058 1.42
special care
{a) Revised DeLong Diagram (Fig. 2).
(b) Difference between measured and calculated felt at the time to be due primarily to cooling rate effects.
Table 3 — Ferrite and Chemistry Variations from Electrode to Weld Deposit — Spray Transfer G MAW — .045 and 1/16 in. ER 308L
Electrode, Pure Argon Shielding Gas
Heat Form C Mn
465 .045 electr. .019
465 Welder 1
deposit .018
465 Welder 2
deposit .016
055 1/16 electr. .014
055 Welder 1
deposit .020
055 Welder 2
deposit .016
(a) Revised DeLong Diagram (Fig. 2)
was undertaken to determine the
effects of several variables on the
Magne-Gage ferrite of GMAW and
GTAW deposits, with primary
emphasis on changes in nitrogen
content between filler metal and de-
posit. Nitrogen was emphasized be-
cause we have found on covered
electrode deposits that if the ferrite of
the deposit is substantially below our
aim, say from 2 to 6 or more FN
below, the p r o b l e m is invariably
t r a c e a b l e to e x c e s s i v e n i t r o g e n
pickup in the deposit due to some-
what lax welding procedures. The
standard pad design (Fig. 3) is good
from an economics viewpoint but is
very exposed from the viewpoint of air
intrusion, and a very short arc must
be maintained.
In this study, we have used the
DeLong Constitution Diagram shown
in Fig. 2 and the Magne-Gage calibra-
tion method established by the WRC 10
as the basis for all of our ferrite
values, whether calculated from
chemistry or measured on the actual
weld deposit. As previously noted, the
ferrite contents are given in terms of
Ferrite Number (FN).
Our own direct studies were also in
part due to a customer complaint re-
ceived in the early 1960's. It c o n -
cerned the ferrite content of semi-
automatic inert GMAW spray transfer
deposits p r e p a r e d with 1/16 in.
ER309 filler metal from a heat which
showed 10 FN as calculated using the
electrode chemistry and the DeLong
Diagram. The customer, who was ex-
Si Cr Ni
.43 24.61 13.66
.31 24.08 13.48
.38 23.81 13.48
Ferrite number,
Si Cr
1.74 .47 20.55
1.62 .54 20.60
1.52 .52 20.43
1.73 .60 21.00
1.62 .56 21.17
1.54 .56 21.08
p e r i e n c e d and k n o w l e d g e a b l e in
stainless steel fabrication, noted that
M a g n e - G a g e c h e c k s of their d e -
posits showed ferrite of less than 5
FN, and in some instances less than 1
FN. Our routine handling of the c o m -
plaint, comprising preparation of a
standard ferrite pad with a sample of
the electrode under conditions closely
matching those used by the cus-
tomer, also produced Magne-Gage
readings showing ferrite of less than 1
FN.
Based on our prior experience with
covered electrodes we would not
have been surprised at a difference of
up to ± 2 . 5 FN from the value calcu-
lated from bare electrode chemistry,
w h i c h w e a s s u m e d w o u l d be
equivalent to the deposit chemistry;
however, we were unable to explain a
drop from 10 FN calculated to as low
as 1 FN measured. Chemical analysis
of the undiluted weld metal from the
ferrite pad revealed that, although
average changes in other elements
were minor, the weld metal nitrogen
was more than twice that in the elec-
trode (see Table 2, Item 2). The nitro-
gen level was high enough to recon-
cile the calculated and the measured
ferrite within the normal spread of
±2.5 FN which we expected.
Because the data showed that our
welder's procedures allowed nitrogen
incursion to the arc zone, we had him
repeat the test taking special care to
hold a short arc and a short gas cup-
to-work distance. These precautions
decreased the nitrogen pickup to an
WELDING RESEARCH SUPPLEMENT!
Spray Transfer GMAW — 1/16 In. ER 309
Mo N Ferrite number,
calculated' 3 ' measured
.14 .063 11.6
.12 .161 2.4 0.6 W
,b)
.12 .070 9.1 6.0
Ni N calculated^) measured
10.15 .029 14.3 —
10.10 .057 12.6 9.1
10.42 .319 0 0
9.90 .069 15.0 —
9.95 .112 10.5 7.8
10.14 .224 0.9 1.0
acceptably low level, as shown in
Table 2, Item 3; calculated ferrite on
the repeat pad was 9.1 FN and the
Magne-Gage ferrite was 6 FN. This is
acceptable from a cracking view-
point, although not from the view-
point of good agreement of measured
FN with the FN calculated from either
the electrode chemistry or, to a lesser
degree, the pad chemistry. Our re-
sults indicated that it was not the elec-
trode but probably the customer's
welder's procedure which was the
problem. Thus, in spite of the cus-
tomer's experience, they still had a
welder whose practices were ap-
parently poor in GMAW of austenitic
stainless steel.
The Type 309 experience and addi-
tional more recent studies with other
types have confirmed that nitrogen
p i c k u p occurs all too readily in
GMAW and GTAW. This pickup is un-
fortunately not visually obvious during
or after welding because the deposit
appearance does not change signifi-
cantly. The only means of detecting
nitrogen pickup are measurement of
the deposit ferrite level, analysis of
the deposit for nitrogen, or weld metal
cracking if the ferrite is too low and
the joint restrained.
It is well understood that nitrogen
pickup has a very strong influence on
weld metal ferrite content. The reason
is that nitrogen is 30 times as strong
an austenitizer as nickel, according to
the DeLong Diagram, so that pickup
of very small amounts in the weld
metal disproportionately lowers the
285-s

Table 4 — Gun or Torch Design Vs. Weld Metal Nitrogen Pickup — Type 308L — Using
Skilled Welder Under Excellent Laboratory Conditions
No. of
Gun or torch tests
GMAW gun A 22
GMAW gun B 12
GMAWgunC 8 .018/.026
GMAW gun D 4 .021/.024
GTAW torch E 8 .019/.034
GTAW torch F
(Gas lens) 8 .012/.020
(a) Assuming 0.015%N = 1.2 FN
Table 5 — Changes in Calculated Ferrite Attributable to Changes of 0.2 in Chromium and
Nickel Equivalents at 21 Chromium Equivalent
Approx. Change in ferrite
ferrite content for a ± 0.2
content, change in Cr Eq
FN or % DeLongla) Schaeffler
2 0.6 FN 0.7%
6 0.8 FN 0.65%
11 0.9 FN 0.6%
(a) Based on revised DeLong Diagram, Fig. 2.
ferrite content; since the source of
nitrogen is air, it is evident that any
factor which decreases the effective-
ness of the arc shield in GMAW or
GTAW can cause significant loss of
ferrite from that calculated using the
f i l l e r m e t a l c h e m i s t r y to t h a t
measured in the deposit. As an exam-
ple, referring to Fig. 2, let it be as-
s u m e d t h a t e n o u g h air b r e a k s
through the protective gas shield so
that 0.08% nitrogen is picked up by
the deposit. This adds 2.4 to the
Nickel Equivalent (Ni Eq) and will
reduce the deposit ferrite level by as
much as 8 FN. Associated with this
amount of nitrogen, the deposit could
be expected to pickup about 0.02%
oxygen, which would combine with
the oxidizable elements silicon, man-
ganese, chromium and perhaps car-
bon. The individual loss of any of
these would be so low that the change
in their levels in the deposit, and c o n -
sequently the change in the calcu-
lated ferrite level, would be negli-
gible. Also, the small amount of ad-
ditional slag or oxide so formed has
no s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t on t h e
appearance of the final weld. If we
assume that one fourth of the oxygen,
or 0.005% combines with each ele-
ment, the losses would be as follows,
rounded off:
A. 0.005% O combines with
0.005% Si to form 0 . 0 1 % SiOi;
0.005% Si = 0.007 Cr Eq.
B. 0.005% O combines with
0.015% Cr to form 0.02% CrO;
0.015% Cr = 0.015 Cr Eq.
286-s I J U L Y 1973
Effects of Variables on Nitrogen Pickup
Some of the most important vari-
ables affecting nitrogen pickup and
N pick up n Approx. equiv. the extent of their effects are dis-
weld m etal % calculated fe r r i t e l o s s ( a ) c u s s e d in t h e f o l l o w i n g p a r a -
graphs.
range avg. range avg.
Welder Technique. This is un-
.014/.069 .036 1.1/5.5 2.9
.012/.027
doubtedly the major influencing var-
.020 1.0/2.2 1.6
.021 1.4/2.1 1.7 iable. Poor technique, arising either
.022 1.7/1.9 1.8 from inexperience or inattention, can
.025 1.5/2.7 2.0 allow aufficient nitrogen pickup,
either through turbulence or through
.016 1.0/1.6 1.3 holding an excessively long gas cup-
to-work distance, to eliminate virtually
all ferrite from the w e l d deposit.
Table 3 illustrates the effect that
welder technique can have on deposit
ferrite. This table sets forth the
changes in nitrogen that occurred
between bare electrode and deposit
in experiments with two heats of
Cumul. c hange in ER308L filler metal; semiautomatic
Change in ferrite ferrite cc ntentfor GMAW using spray transfer with pure
content for a ± 0.2 + 0.2Cr Eq and - 0 . 2 Ni argon shielding was used to prepare
change in Ni Eq Eq or vice-versa
all four weld pads according to the re-
D e L o n g , a ) Schaeffler DeLong ( a ) Schaeffler quirements of MIL-E-19933D. Note
0.5 FN 0.65% 1.1 FN 1.35% that except for nitrogen, the deposit
0.6 FN 0.6% 1.4 FN 1.25% chemistry was very little changed
0.7 FN 0.65% 1.6 FN 1.25% from the electrode chemistry. Ferrite
was measured on all pads with a
calibrated Magne-Gage and calcu-
lated from chemistry using the
DeLong Diagram.
C. 0.005% 0 combines with Welder 1, who had long experience
0.015% Mn to form 0.02% MnO; in stainless steel GMAW, allowed far
.015% Mn = .007 Ni Eq. less nitrogen pickup than Welder 2,
D. 0.005.% O combines with whose experience had been primarily
0.004% C to form 0.009% CO; with C 0 2 - s h i e l d e d w e l d i n g using
0.004% C = .12 Ni Eq. tubular electrodes. Welder 2 did not
recognize that his t e c h n i q u e was
These losses in silicon, c h r o m i u m poor, in spite of the fact that he was a
and m a n g a n e s e w o u l d hardly be skilled semiautomatic welder. This
noticeable on analysis, and their emphasizes the importance of the
effect on the ferrite would be quite right kind of experience in mini-
low. Even the assumed carbon loss mizing nitrogen pickup in GMAW
would only be equivalent to an in- stainless deposits.
crease of about 0.3 FN. In GTAW also, welder technique
The solubility limit of nitrogen in can bring about loss of ferrite. For ex-
austenitic stainless steel is in excess ample, a heat of 1/16 in. ER309 rod
of 0.25% and sets a m a x i m u m on the with a DeLong-calculated ferrite of 15
amount of nitrogen that can be picked FN was used to prepare a standard
up during welding; however, an extra GTAW test pad by one of our skilled
0.20% nitrogen added to a 0.05% ni- welders who had not previously been
trogen base in the filler metal adds 6.0 trained to avoid nitrogen pickup. Not
to the Ni Eq on the DeLong Diagram recognizing the p r o b l e m , he did not
and represents a theoretical loss of use the proper techniques, and as a
about 18 FN, so it can be seen that ni- result the pad checked at 6.7 FN by
trogen pickup can potentially elimin- Magne-Gage, a drop of 8.3 FN. Such
ate all ferrite from virtually all c o m - a loss is not at all typical of GTAW,
mon austenitic deposits. and we therefore had the welder run a
repeat pad and asked him to concen-
It should also be restated that ex-
trate on maintaining optimum gas
c e s s i v e n i t r o g e n p i c k u p is not
shielding, which is our normal prac-
ordinarily reflected in changed bead
tice when unexpectedly low ferrite re-
appearance or in the loss of oxidiz-
sults are obtained. On the repeat pad
able elements; one reliable and rapid
the Magne-Gage ferrite was 16.3 FN,
means of detecting substantial in-
which agrees very well with the calcu-
creases in nitrogen is a comparison of
the weld metal ferrite content as lated 15.0 FN for the heat. We have
m e a s u r e d using a p r o p e r l y cali- found that in virtually every similar
brated instrument with the theoretical case we have e n c o u n t e r e d , t h e
ferrite content as calculated from the Magne-Gage ferrite of GTAW de-
filler metal chemistry with the DeLong posits can be brought within the nor-
Diagram. mally expected range by the use of a
 Table 6 - - GTAW Rod — Chemical Summary — 71 Heats

No. of
Type heats C Mn Si Cr Ni Mo N Cb
ER308 27
Range .027/.069 1.6/2.06 .35/.61 20.10/21.44 9.40/10.25 .05/.34 .020/.07 —
Avg. .046 1.79 .47 20.68 9.86 .24 .048 —
ER347 2
Range .057/.059 1.58/1.68 .52A55 19.28/19.31 9.50/9.70 .14/.20 .047/.056 .82A88
Avg. .058 1.63 .54 19.30 9.60 .17 .051 .85
ER308L 13
(a)
Range .011/.024 1.61/2.02 .34/.57 19.75/21.30 9.60/10.22 .04/.31 .019/.076 —
Avg. .018 1.80 .46 20.48 9.96 .18 .042 —
ER309 15
Range .039/.08 1.56/1.93 .39A63 23.70/24.80 12.80/13.80 .04/.26 .033/.064 82(b)

Avg. .056 1.75 .47 24.16 13.23 .15 .054 —

ER316 8
Range .030/.061 1.42/1.68 .31/.55 18.44/19.40 12.60/13.10 2.12/2.24 .029/.05 —
Avg. .042 1.61 .46 18.91 12.86 2.19 .036 —
ER316L 6
Range .016/.029 1.17/1.81 .38/.58 18.15/19.23 11.90/13.20 2.09/2.24 .025/.035 —
Avg. .020 1.58 .48 18.91 12.75 2.22 .030 —
(a) Excluding one at OS
(b) One heat only

Table 7 -- GMAW Electrode — Chem cal Summary — 28 Heats

No. of
Type heats c Mn Si Cr Ni Mo N Cb
ER308 10
Range .040/.066 1.60/1.94 .37A54 20.10/21.44 9.40/TO.25 .05/.34 .037/.065 —
Avg " .046 1.78 .44 20.71 9.81 .19 .052 —
ER347 2
Range .041/.057 1.66/1.68 .52/.64 19.28/19.50 9.50/9.73 .14/.23 .047/.064 .82/.91
Avg .049 1.67 .58 19.39 9.62 .19 .056 .87
ER308L 6
Range .015/.024 1.54/1.94 .44/.57 ( a ) 19.75/20.80 9.80/10.15 .02/.31 .024/.06 —
Avg .019 1.78 .50 20.43 10.04 .16 .040 —
ER309 7
Range .039/.08 1.64/1.93 .39/.63 23.80/24.75 12.90/13.60 .06/.26 .05/.064 —
Avg .061 1.77 .48 24.18 13.26 .16 .057 —
ER316 1
Range — — — — — — — —
Avg. .040 1.67 .55 18.95 12.94 2.24 .031 —
ER316L 2
Range .019/.029 1.17/1.81 .48/.50 19.10/19.23 12.40/13.00 2.21/2.31 .028/.031 —
Avg .024 1.49 .49 19.17 12.70 2.26 .030 —
(a) Excluding one at 0.S

technique which emphasizes max-

Table 8 — Average Carbon Losses and C Drresponding FN Gain from Filler Metal Analysis
imum gas shielding of the arc and
to Deposit Analysis
molten weld metal.
Optimum welder technique for both Avg.
No. of No. of C, avg. loss, Approx.
GMAW and GTAW includes holding
Type heats tests heat, % C, % FN gain
arc length and gas cup-to-work dis-
GTAW 309 15 23 .059 .018 1.8
tances as short as possible, avoiding
process 308, 347 29 56 .047 .014 1.5
drafts in the welding area, and main-
316 8 14 .042 .011 1.0
taining equipment, particularly gas 308L, 316L
nozzles, clean to minimize turbulence
19 36 .019 .001 —
in the gas shield. GMAW 309 7 8 .061 .007 0.7
process 308, 347 12 14 .047 .003 0.3
Transfer Mode. Insofar as the
transfer mode relates to shielding gas 316 1 1 .040 .002 0.2
turbulence, it can influence nitrogen 308L, 316L 8 9 .020 .000 —
pickup. GTAW, because it involves (a) These figures were deducted from the filler metal carbon when calculating predicted ferrite content, except that no
low gas flow rates and thus relatively deduction was made for 308L or 316L either GTAW or GMAW, due to the low average changes in these types. In addi-
non-turbulent flow and because the tion, when calculating predicted ferrite using the DeLong Diagram .020% was added to the filler metal nitrogen for
GTAW pads and .040% nitrogen was added for GMAW pads. These are equivalent to approximate Ferrite Number
filler metal is melted rather than trans- losses of 2.0 and 4.0 respectively.

W E L D I N G RESEARCH S U P P L E M E N T ! 287-s
ferred across the arc, which mini- Table 9 — Ferrite Data from 53 Type 308 GTAW Pads
mizes exposure of the metal, gen-
erally provides the least nitrogen
Rod Change, Change,
pickup of the gas-shielded processes
diam, Cr DeL. Sch. DeL. Sch. M-Gl" DeL. F N t o Sch. F N t o
and hence the least variations in weld Heat in. Eq (a) Ni Eq ( b l Ni Eq |c| FN (d) FN (e) FN M-G FN M-GFN
metal ferrite content. A l t h o u g h it
would be expected that GMAW with 21.44 14.66 12.35 7.5 8.. 10.0(9> + 2.5 (9> + 1.2<9)
short circuiting transfer might show .030 9.7 + 2.4 + 1.1
.045 12.0 + 4.5 + 3.2
somewhat greater gas turbulence
.045 7.4 -0.1 -1.4
than spray transfer GMAW, it is also + 2.9 + 1.6
1/16 10.4
true that short circuiting arc transfer 3/32 9.8 + 2,3 + 1.0
does not involve the fine particles of 3/32 10.4 + 2.9 + .1.6
molten metal which cross the arc gap 1/8 9.9 + 2.4 + 1.1
in spray transfer, so the overall 5/32 10.1 + 2.6 + 1.3
nitrogen pickup could be either less 21.67 13.67 11.57 11.9 11.7 11.7 , 9 ) - 0 . 2 (3) 0.0 (9»
or greater than with spray transfer; .045 10.2 -1.7 -1.5
our data are inconclusive on this 3/32 10.8 -1.1 -0.9
point. 3/32 13.6 + 1.7 + 1.9
1/8 12.0 + 0.1 + 0.3
Gun or Torch Design. Here again 3 — 21.21 13.30 11.14 11.0 11.7 11.4 <9) + 0.4'9) + 0.7' 9 >
the effect is related to gas turbulence. 1/16 11.5 + 0.5 -0.2
Table 4 summarizes the results o b - 3/32 10.4 -0.6 -1.3
1/8 12.4 + 1.4 + 0.7
t a i n e d in G M A W tests w i t h f o u r _0.2(9)
21.29 13.80 11.70 9.6 10.1 9.9 l 9 ) + 0.3 l 9 )
different gun designs f r o m three
1/16 11.5 + 1.9 + 1.4
manufacturers; the tests covered both
1/8 9.5 -0.1 -0.6
spray and short-circuiting transfer, 1/8 8.6 -1.0 -1.5
using 99% A r - 1 % 0 2 and 90% He- 5 — 20.96 14.13 11.76 7.1 9.3 9.1(9) + 2.0 ( s ) -0.2'9>
7.5% Ar-2.5% C 0 2 shielding gases re- 1/16 9.1 + 2.0 -0.2
spectively, and both 0.045 and 1/16 3/32 9.1 + 2.0 -0.2
in. electrode diameters. Also s u m - 1/8 9.0 + 1.9 -0.3
21.01 13.92 11.52 8.0 10.0 8.2(9) (g> -1.8(9)
marized are the results of GTAW tests + 0 2

with two c o m m e r c i a l l y available 1/16 8.2 +0.2 -1.8

torches, one with a gas lens and the 3/32 8.1 + 0.1 -1.9
1/8 8.2 + 0.2 -1.8
other without. All the tests were run by
7 — 21.51 13.05 11.37 13.3 11. 11.4*9) -1.9.(9) -0.4(9»
the experienced Welder 1 of Table 3 -1.1
1/16 10.7 -2.6
and under c o m f o r t a b l e and c o n - 12.1 -1.2 + 0.3,
1/16
trolled laboratory conditions; con- 21.46 13.42 11.92 11.8 10.0 11.6 (9 > - 0 . 2 (9) + 1.6 <gl
sequently, the nitrogen increases in 1/16 12.4 + 0.6 + 2.4
these tests were all relatively low. 1/16 10.7 -1.1 + 0 7
- ,„i
21.57 13.60 11.20 11.6 12.6 13.01a' + 1.4 (9) + 0.4 ( 9 )
The G M A W tests showed very little 3/32 13.9 + 2.3 + 1.3
difference between Guns B, C and D, 3/32 12.0 + 0.4 -0.6
all three guns providing reasonably 10 21.18 14.22 11.82 7.7 9.6 7.5 , 9 ) - 0 . 3 (9) + 2.1 <9)
low weld metal nitrogen pickup; Gun 3/32 7.7 0 -1.9
A performed somewhat less well than 1/8 7.2 -0.5 -2.4
the other three, possibly for the rea- 11 21.74 13.05 11.43 14.2 12.2 12.1 (9' _21(g> - 0 . 1 '9I
sons that (a) it was in poorer overall 1/16 12.9 -1.3 + 0.7
3/32 11.3 -2.9 -0.9
condition than the others, having
been in use in our laboratory c o n -
siderably longer than they, and (b) the the former contained lower nitrogen When the variations in nitrogen
data shown for Gun A represent a in all cases. pickup shown in the data are con-
larger number and variety of test con- Joint Design and Position of sidered, as well as the added varia-
ditions than the data shown for the Welding. Although no tests were run tions which could come from varia-
other guns. As a general rule, it ap- in these areas it seems logical that tions in production welding situations
pears that when all are in equally nitrogen pickup would depend upon due to the influence of the joint on gas
good (or bad) condition no signi- these variables also. Both fillet welds shielding, any assumptions reached
ficant differences will be seen and deep groove welds are obviously must be accepted as being only ap-
between most commercially avail- physically better shielded than welds proximations of the final results. With
able semiautomatic GMAW guns, ex- on a flat plate. Protection against this caution in mind, we assume a
cept that the size and overall drafts would be a variable. Gas pro- GTAW pickup of 0.020% N and a
geometry of the gun may affect nitro- tection could be better or poorer in GMAW pickup of 0.040% N. The
gen p i c k u p to the extent that it the vertical or overhead positions GTAW figure of 0.020% is roughly
prevents the welder from holding a than in the flat position. equal to the average data presented
short gas cup-to-work distance — Recommendations On Average and represents what we estimate
e.g., use of a large, heavy gun to de- Nitrogen Pickup. From a practical would result from good practice in
posit a small fillet weld in tight viewpoint, it is necessary to assume joints more protected than our test
quarters may result in lower deposit some average nitrogen pickup from pads. The GMAW figure of 0.040% is
ferrite than use of a smaller light- filler metal to deposit in order to above the average of the data in Table
weight g u n for the s a m e j o b . In supply a filler metal to a customer 4 but provides a factor of safety for
GTAW, nitrogen pickup can be re- which will give him a reasonable welders less trained in and less con-
duced by use of a torch which in- ferrite level in the weld deposit — scious of the nitrogen problem than
cludes a gas lens. In the set of eight reasonable in the sense of providing the welder who ran most of our later
pairs of weld deposits prepared to enough ferrite to prevent cracking or tests. As our earlier tests show, the
compare the gas lens torch with the to meet some deposit ferrite require- pickup of nitrogen and the loss of
ordinary torch, deposits made with ments or both. ferrite can be quite high.

288-s I J U L Y 1 9 7 3
 prepared with covered electrodes
1/16 to V* in. in diam and of three dif-
ferent coverings. Of these, the 308,
Change, Change,
diam,
308L, 309 and 347 pads averaged
Cr DeL. Sch. DeL. Sch. M-G DeL. F N t o Sch. FN to
Heat in. Eq Ni Eq Ni Eq FN FN FN M-GFN M-GFN about 6% ferrite on the old scale, and
the many 316, 316L, 317 and 317L
12 12.0*9) _0.6<9) -0.9<9>
pads ranged from 0% up to 6%. Since
3/32 22.08 13.98 11.52 12.6 12.9 11.3 -1.3 -1.6
little data were available at ferrite
3/32 12.6 0 -0.3
11.2(9) -3.6(9) -0.3<9)
levels higher than 8%, the original
13 —
3/32 21.62 12.73 11.53 14.8 11.5 12.1 -2.7 +0.6 ferrite lines at 8% and higher were
1/8 10.2 -4.6 -1.3 primarily extensions of the pattern
14 — 9.0 (8) _2.7<9> -2.2(9) shown by the data in the 0 to 8%
.045 21.77 13.84 11.74 11.7 11,2 7.7 -4.0 -3.5 range. In spite of this, our measured
1/16 10.3 -1.4 -0.9 ferrite did correlate reasonably well
15 — with the limited data which we had
1/16 22.34 13.84 12.13 14,1 11,6 13.0 -1.1 + 1.4 available for higher ferrite levels, and
16 — did support the diagram lines from
1/16 21.46 13.91 11.90 10.0 10.0 10.2 +0.2 +0.2
8% through 14% ferrite.
17 —
3/32 21.77 13.43 11.91 13.1 10.7 9.7 -3.2 -1.0 However, the recent WRC calibra-
18 — tion has increased the assigned
3/32 21.88 13.79 11.60 12.4 12.1 12.4 0 + 0.3 values for ferrite content as pre-
19 — viously described. In addition, it
1/16 21.30 14.67 11.97 7.0 9.5 9.3 + 2.3 -0.2
seemed desirable to utilize the sub-
20 — stantial body of quality assurance
.045 21.32 14.36 11.87 7.9 9.8 7.7 -0.2 -2.1
21
data which we had collected on
— GTAW and GMAW deposits
1/16 21.59 14.85 12.69 7.5 8.4 9.3 + 1.8 +0.9
22 (presented in the next portion of this
—
3/32 21.75 13.17 11.31 14.0 12.7 14.3 + 0.3 + 1.6 paper) to further improve the diagram
23 — in the high ferrite areas. This data
1/16 21.67 13.11 11.61 13.7 11.4 11.6 -2.1 +0.2 substantially outnumbered the prior
24 — data from covered electrodes in the
1/8 21.77 12.44 11.12 16.3 13.3 14.2 -2.1 + 0.9 higher ferrite area. The extent of the
25 — revisions can be s u m m a r i z e d as
1/18 21.88 13.60 12.25 13.0 10.1 13.2 +0.2 + 3.1
follows: (1) no change was made in
26 — the 0% (i.e., 0 FN) line, (2) slight
.035 22.18 13.93 11.98 13.1 11.8 8.9 -4.2 -2.9
27 changes were made in the 4 to 6 FN
— area to make a smooth transition to
3/32 21.23 13.90 11.68 9.0 10.1 9.8 +0.8 -0.3
the reduced spacing between lines
above the old 6% level and (3) at
(a) Cr Eq: Chromium equivalent calculated from filler metal chemistry (= % Cr + % Mo + 1.5 X % Si + 0.5 X % Cb); Ferrite Numbers above 8, where the
Same for both DeLong and Schaeffler Diagrams
(b) DeL. Ni Eq: DeLong nickel equivalent calculated from filler metal chemistry corrected per Table 8 ( = % Ni + 30 X %
original covered weld metal data were
C + 0.5 X % Mn•+ 30 X % N) sparse, the m a t h e m a t i c a l l y c o n -
(c) Sch. Ni Eq: Schaeffler nickel equivalent calculated from filler metal chemistry corrected per Table 8 (+ % Ni + 30 X % verted lines were shifted somewhat
C + 0.5 x % Mn)
(d) DeL. FN: Ferrite Number calculated using DeLong constitution diagram toward the 0 FN line so that the new
(e) Sch. FN: % ferrite calculated using Schaeffler constitution diagram (taken as equal to FN) diagram better reflects the ferrite
(f) M-G FN: Ferrite Number measured on pad using Magne-Gage calibrated per WRC procedure
(g) Average for heat when more than one test per heat.
levels found in GTAW and GMAW
deposits.

Table 10 — Ferrite Data from 3 Type 347 GTAW Pads Inherent Differences Between the
(For Explanation of Column Headings See Footnotes Table 9) DeLong and Schaeffler Diagrams

A comparison of Figs. 1 and 2

Rod Change, Change, shows that the calculated Chromium
diam, Cr DeL. Sch. DeL. Sch. M-G DeL. F N t o Sch. F N t o
NiEq NiEq FN FN
Equivalent (Cr Eq) for a given speci-
Heat in. Eq FN M-GFN M-G FN
men will be the same for both the
28 20.78 14.12 11.84 6.3 8.6 8.4 | a ) + 2.1 <a) -0.2 (a)
DeLong and Schaeffler Diagrams, but
1/16 8.2 + 1.9 -0.4 the calculated Nickel Equivalent (Ni
3/32 8.6 + 2.3 0 Eq) will obviously be higher for the
28 20.61 13.64 11.63 7.1 8.7
D e L o n g D i a g r a m b e c a u s e of
045 5.8 -1.3 -2.9
DeLong's added factor for nitrogen.
(a) Average for heat when more than one test per heat
Schaeffler assumes 0.060% N for 308,
which on the DeLong Diagram repre-
sents 1.8 Ni Eq. The objective of this
section is to clarify and compare the
effects of rather small changes in
DeLong Constitution Diagram Number scale for magnetic instru- Chromium and Nickel Equivalents on
Revision ments, specifically for our Magne- the predicted ferrite levels as calcu-
Gages. This is a direct mathematical lated with the DeLong and Schaeffler
The C o n s t i t u t i o n Diagram conversion, as illustrated in Table 1. Diagrams. As base points the points
presented in 1956 3 is presented in a Also, a slight adjustment was made where the 2, 6 and 11 FN (DeLong) or
revised form as Fig. 2, The major revi- in the line locations for the higher percent ferrite (Schaeffler) lines inter-
sion has been to convert the original ferrite areas of the diagram. The sect the vertical line at 21.0 Cr Eq will
magnetically-determined percent fer- original diagram was based on data be used. The individual effects of
rite values to the new WRC Ferrite f r o m over 600 weld metal pads changes of ± 0 . 2 in Cr Eq and Ni Eq

WELDING RESEARCH SUPPLEMENT! 289-s

Table 11 — Ferrite Data f r o m 22 Type 308L GTAW Pads c o u n t e r e d in a g r o u p of weJd d e -
posits p r e p a r e d with filler m e t a l f r o m
a given heat and type.
(For Explanation ot Column Headings See Footnotes Table 9)
Rod Change, Change, Procedure
diam, Cr DeL. Sch. DeL. Sch. M-G DeL. F N t o Sch. F N t o
Heat in. Eq Ni Eq Ni Eq FN FN FN M-GFN M-GFN Several approaches were con-
(a) s i d e r e d in a n a l y z i n g t h e w e l d p a d s .
30 21.63 14.10 11.22 10.0 12.6 10.8 ( a ) + 0.8 -1.8 A m o n g t h e s e w e r e (a) t o c a l c u -
1/16 9.7 -0.3 -2.9
late f e r r i t e u s i n g o n l y t h e f i l l e r m e t a l
3/32 9.8 -0.2 -2.8
5/32 13.0 + 3.0 +0.4 heat analysis a n d c o m p a r e the results
31 - 20.96 12.97 11.44 11.0 11.1 W + 0.1 < a)
+ 1.1<»> with the m e a s u r e d (Magne-Gage)
10.0
.035 11.3 +0.3 + 1.3 f e r r i t e o b t a i n e d in e a c h p a d ; ( b ) s a m e
3/32 11.3 +0.3 + 1.3 as (a) b u t u s i n g a c t u a l w e l d m e t a l
3/32 10.8 -0.2 + 0.8 analysis including an estimate for
32 — 21.48 12.87 11.43 13.8 11.4 11.4<a» — 2.4 , a > 0.0' a ) n i t r o g e n c o n t e n t of t h e w e l d m e t a l
1/16 10.8 -3.0 -0.6 (since the QA weld metal analyses did
1/16 12.0 -1.8 + 0.6 n o t i n c l u d e n i t r o g e n ) ; a n d (c) t o
33 21.11 12.£ 11.14 12.1 11.3
•>(a)
9.9" -2.2|a) -1.4 ( a > m o d i f y t h e filler m e t a l heat a n a l y s e s
3/32 9.0 -3.1 -2.3
s o a s t o r e f l e c t a n t i c i p a t e d c h a n g e s in
1/8 10.8 -1.3 -0.5
-3.3(a) the critical elements c a r b o n and nitro-
34 — 21.40 14.10 11.40 9.0 11.3 8.0 (a) -1.0(a)
.045 7.3 -1.7 -4.0 g e n , a n d to c o m p a r e ferrite c a l c u -
1/16 8.8 -0.2 -2.5 lated f r o m the resulting analyses
35 21.34 13.48 11.59 11.0 10.6 11.9 (a) + 0.9 ( a ) + 1.3,a» with M a g n e - G a g e ferrite m e a s u r e d on
.035 12.2 + 1.2 + 1.6 the pads.
1/16 11.7 + 0.7 + 1.1
36 11.5 <a) + 2.8 ( a ) + 1.3 (a) A p p r o a c h (c) w a s f i n a l l y d e c i d e d
20.92 13.59 11.31 8.7 10.2
3/32 12.1 + 3.4 + 1.9 u p o n . U s e d as t h e base w a s t h e filler
I/8 11.0 + 0.8 metal chemistry d e t e r m i n e d f r o m the
37 21.85 12.16 10.99 17.7 14.3 + 2.3 a v e r a g e of s e v e r a l t e s t s o n t h e h o t
1/16 14.8 + 0.5 rolled rod a n d / o r d r a w n wire for the
38 21.47 13.03 13.0 11.0 -2.9
11.53 elements carbon, manganese, silicon,
3/32 11.5 + 0.5 c h r o m i u m , nickel, m o l y b d e n u m and
39 21.28 12.71 13.4 11.3 -1.5
11.30 c o l u m b i u m and the supplying mill
3/32 12.8 + 1.5 a n a l y s i s f o r n i t r o g e n . S u m m a r i e s of
40 21.57 13.17 13.1 10.8 -0.6
11.70 the filler m e t a l a n a l y s e s by t y p e a r e
1/8 11.5 + 0.7
41 10.0 -1.6 p r e s e n t e d in T a b l e 6 f o r t h e r o d s
20.96 13.26 11.49 10.0
3/32 10.8 + 0.8 u s e d in G T A W a n d T a b l e 7 f o r t h e
42 14.1 14.0 + 0.8 e l e c t r o d e s u s e d in G M A W . A c o m -
22.36 13.89 11.49
.035 10.0 -4.0 p a r i s o n of t h e a c t u a l w e l d metal
-4.1 analyses with t h e filler metal c h e m i s -
(a) Average for heat when more than one test per heat tries indicated the following:
1. T h e r e w a s a d i s t i n c t p a t t e r n of
l o s s e s in c a r b o n c o n t e n t between
a n d t h e c u m u l a t i v e e f f e c t s of a i n f o r c e e a c h o t h e r , p r o d u c e an o v e r a l l f i l l e r m e t a l a n d p a d , t h e a m o u n t of
c h a n g e of + 0 . 2 Cr E q a n d - 0 . 2 Ni E q c h a n g e of a b o u t 1.1 t o 1.6 F N d e - c a r b o n lost d e p e n d i n g o n w i r e c a r b o n
(or - 0 . 2 C r E q a n d + 0 . 2 Ni Eq) a r e p e n d i n g o n the ferrite level a n d t h e content and welding process; Table 8
s h o w n in T a b l e 5. T h e v a l u e s w e r e o b - diagram used. lists t h e s e f i n d i n g s . In c a l c u l a t i n g
t a i n e d by r e a d i n g t h e d i a g r a m s of " p r e d i c t e d " ferrite w e modified the
F i g u r e s 1 a n d 2 as c l o s e l y a s p o s s i b l e . filler m e t a l c a r b o n c o n t e n t in a c c o r d -
Study of GTAW and GMAW
As w o u l d be expected f r o m ex- a n c e w i t h t h e a v e r a g e l o s s e s s h o w n in
Deposits
a m i n i n g t h e d i a g r a m s , t h e p a t t e r n is T a b l e 8.
not a c o n s t a n t one b e c a u s e both the The following discussion covers a 2. A l t h o u g h s o m e t r e n d s were
s p a c i n g s a n d t h e s l o p e s of t h e c o n - s t u d y of 129 G T A W a n d 3 2 G M A W seen indicating slight average losses
stant ferrite lines c h a n g e f r o m o n e d e p o s i t s p r e p a r e d by our Quality A s - in M n , N i , C r a n d M o (in t h e M o -
d i a g r a m t o t h e o t h e r . A t a level of 2 surance (QA) Department; M a g n e - bearing grades), which we assumed
F N , a g i v e n c h a n g e in Cr E q a n d / o r Ni G a g e f e r r i t e w a s c h e c k e d o n all t h e to be primarily d u e to vaporization
Eq w i l l p r o d u c e l e s s c h a n g e in c a l c u - d e p o s i t s , a n d o n m o s t of t h e d e - rather than to o x i d a t i o n , w e i g n o r e d
lated ferrite on the D e L o n g D i a g r a m posits chemical analyses were run. t h e m b e c a u s e (a) t h e e f f e c t s w e r e
than on the Schaeffler Diagram; how- The study was undertaken for the l a r g e l y s e l f - c a n c e l l i n g , (b) t h e y w o u l d
e v e r , at l e v e l s of 6 FN a n d 11 F N t h e following listed p u r p o s e s : influence calculated Ferrite N u m b e r
r e v e r s e is t r u e . A l s o n o t e t h a t t h e 1. T o d e v e l o p a p r a c t i c a l m e t h o d b y n o m o r e t h a n a b o u t 0.5 F N if a t all
c h a n g e s in c a l c u l a t e d f e r r i t e a r e for p r e d i c t i n g G T A W a n d G M A W a n d (c) t h e r e w a s a q u e s t i o n a s t o
r a t h e r s u b s t a n t i a l in v i e w of t h e r e l a - deposit ferrite using chemical whether the changes might have been
t i v e l y s m a l l c h a n g e of 0.2 in t h e C r E q a n a l y s i s of t h e f i l l e r m e t a l a n d t h e d u e t o n o r m a l a n a l y t i c a l e r r o r in t h e
a n d Ni E q . A 0.2 c h a n g e in Ni E q c o u l d DeLong Diagram. X-ray spectrographic techniques
b e p r o d u c e d by a c h a n g e of a b o u t 2. U s i n g t h e m e t h o d d e v e l o p e d in u s e d to d e t e r m i n e t h e a n a l y s i s ( r e -
0 . 0 0 7 % in C, 0 . 0 0 7 % in N (if t h e 1, to c o m p a r e t h e D e L o n g and checks using wet chemistry tech-
D e L o n g D i a g r a m is u s e d ) , 0 . 2 % in N i , S c h a e f f l e r D i a g r a m s in r e s p e c t of h o w niques are being m a d e to c h e c k this
or 0 . 4 % in M n ; a 0.2 c h a n g e in C r E q closely each predicts the G T A W and out).
c o u l d b e p r o d u c e d b y a c h a n g e of G M A W deposit ferrite for the m o r e In a d d i t i o n t o m o d i f y i n g t h e f i l l e r
0 . 2 % in C r , 0 . 1 4 % in S i , 0 . 2 % in M o o r c o m m o n f e r r i t e - b e a r i n g g r a d e s of metal c a r b o n c o n t e n t for calculation
0 . 4 % in C b . austenitic stainless steels. of p r e d i c t e d w e l d m e t a l f e r r i t e , w h i c h
T a b l e 5 s h o w s t h a t a c h a n g e of 0.2 3. T o s t u d y t h e v a r i a t i o n s in would apply to calculations using both
e a c h in C r E q a n d Ni E q w i l l , if t h e y r e - M a g n e - G a g e readings typically e n - the D e L o n g and the Schaeffler

290-s I J U L Y 1973
Diagrams, we assumed a constant
nitrogen pickup from the filler metal Table 12 — Ferrite Data from 23 Type 309 GTAW Pads
nitrogen of 0.020% for GTAW cal- (For Explanation of Column Headings See Footnotes Table 9)
culations and 0.040% for GMAW cal-
culations (also listed in Table 8 for Rod Change, Change,
reference). These assumptions were diam, Cr DeL. Sch. DeL. Sch. M-G DeL. FN to Sch. F N t o
based on the data discussed earlier in Heat in. Eq NiEq NiEq FN FN FN M-GFN M-GFN
this paper. 43 24.64 18.45 16.17 8.9 7.0 6.8 ( a ) -2.1 , a > -0.2(a)
Tables 9 through 19 list data on the 1/16 7.1 -1.8 +0.1
129 GTAW and 32 GMAW pads in- 3/32 7.1 -1.8 +0.1
cluded in the study; these data are 3/32 6.7 -2.2 -0.3
summarized by type and process in 1/8 6.2 -2.7 -0.8
44 25.01 17.65 15.28 12.8 9.7 9.7 <a) -3.1(a) 0.0 ( a )
Tables 20 (GTAW) and 21 (GMAW).
.045 8.2 -4.6 -1.5
1/8 11.3 -1.5 + 1.6
A n Overall GTAW and GMAW 45 24.70 18.41 16.13 9.2 7.2 8.8 ( a ) -0.4<a> + 1.6 (a)
Review .045 8.8 -0.4 + 1.6
3/32 8.8 -0.4 + 1.6
Variations From Test To Test On A Single 46 25.61 17.23 15.13 16.4 11.0 14.3<a) -2.1(a) +3.3(a)
.035 13.0 -3.4 +2.0
Heat
1/8 15.6 -0.8 +4.6
47 24.96 17.47 15.37 13.3 9.4 12.0<a) -1.3(a» + 2.6 ( a )
The Magne-Gage data from Tables
1/16 10.4 -2.9 + 1.0
9 through 19 have been summarized
1/16 13.7 +0.4 +4.3
and analyzed in Table 22 to show 48 24.94 17.96 15.86 11.7 8.3 10.8 (a) -0.9(a) + 2.5 (a)
statistical data by types and in total for 1/16 13.2 + 1.5 +4.9
all heats on which multiple tests were 3/32 8.5 -3.2 +0.2
run. Each test variance shown was 49 24.86 18.10 15.58 11.0 8.7
calculated by summing the squares of 1/8 10.8 -0.2 +2.1
the differences between individual 50 25.61 18.55 16.15 12.5 9.0
test values and the average test value 3/32 12.6 +0.1 +3.6
for the heat used in each test and 51 24.67 17.58 15.18 11.9 9.2
dividing the sum so obtained by the 1/8 13.2 + 1.3 +4.0
52 25.12 16.94 14.51 15.5 11.6
figure (number of tests minus number
1/16 13.9 -1.4 + 2.3
of heats involved); this divisor c o m - 53 9.4
25.08 17.83 15.43 12.5
bines the usual (n-1) small sample 1/8 13.5 + 1.0 +4.1
divisors for the data from individual 54 24.95 16.70 15.11 15.5 9.8
heats and is the commonly accepted 1/8 9.8 -5.7 0
method of giving an overall variance 55 25.59 16.16 14.57 19.9 12.7
for several small groups of data. Tak- 3/32 18.6 -1.3 +5.9
ing t h e s q u a r e root, of t h e test 56 25.09 17.78 15.38 12.7 9.6
variance furnished the standard 3/32 13.0 + 0.3 + 3.4
57 24.83 16.84 14.38 14.5 11.3
deviation in each case.
1/16 16.3 + 1.8 +5.0
The data in Table 22, being based
on Magne-Gage measurements, are
(a) Average for heat when more than one test per heat
presented in terms of Ferrite Number.
As discussed earlier, the FN can be
r e g a r d e d as e q u i v a l e n t t o t h e
Schaeffler percent ferrite. GTAW Table 13 — Ferrite Data from 14 Type 316 GTAW Pads
data from the several types are ar-
(For Explanation o)' Column Headings See Footnotes Table 9)
ranged in order from the type show-
ing the lowest standard deviation to Rod Change, Change,
diam, Cr DeL. Sch. DeL. Sch. M-G DeL. F N t o Sch. FN to
that showing the highest. The table
Heat in. Eq Ni Eq NiEq FN FN FN M-GFN M-GFN
shows what appears to be a signifi-
cant trend, i.e., that the standard 58 22.29 16.13 14.63 6.3 5.3 5.2 (a) -1.1(a) -0.1(a)
deviation increases appreciably as 1/8 5.7 -0.6 +0.4
the average ferrite content increases. 1/8 4.1 -2.2 -1.2
The combined 316 and 316L tests 1/8 5.8 -0.5 +0.5
show an average ferrite content 5.6 59 22.14 15.96 14.43 6.3 5.4 5.6<a> -0.7(a) +0.2(a)
FN and an average standard devia- 3/32 4.8 -1.5 -0.6
tion of about 0.8 FN. The combined 3/32 6.5 + 0.2 + 1.1
308 and 308L tests average about 60 21.80 16.62 14.79 3.3 3.3 5.4'a» + 2.1(a) +2.1<a>
3/32 4.8 + 1.5 + 1.5
10.6 FN and show an average stan-
1/8 6.1 +2.8 +2.8
dard deviation of about 1.2 FN. Tests 61 22.02 16.18 14.65 5.4 4.5 6 7 (a) + 1.3 (a) + 2.2 ( a )
of the more highly alloyed 309 weld 1/16 6.6 + 1.2 +2.1
metal with about the same ferrite con- 3/32 6.8 + 1.4 +2.3
tent as the 308 show a standard 62 21.19 16.19 14.60 2.4 1.8 2.2(a> -0.2 ( a > +0.4(al
deviation of about 1.8 FN. .035 2.2 -0.2 +0.4
Although the figure for 309 may be .045 2.2 -0.2 +0.4
correct and due to that type's higher 63 21.78 16.42 14.32 3.8 4.7
.045 5.9 + 2.1 + 1.2
alloy content, it is based on only 14
64 21.59 15.81 14.34 4.6 4.0
tests and with more tests the standard
1/16 4.4 -0.2 +0.4
deviation for 309 might come down 65 21.50 16.71 14.91 2.1 1.9
toward that of the 308 family. The 3/32 4.8 + 2.7 + 2.9
overall GTAW g r o u p of 94 tests on 36
heats shows an average standard (a) Average for heat when more than one test per heat

WELDING RESEARCH SUPPLEMENT! 291-s

 dication that the standard deviations
Table 14 — Ferrite Data from 14 Type 316L GTAW Pads
for measured ferrite at high FN levels
(For Explanation of Column Headings See Footnotes Table 9) are greater than they are at low FN
levels.
Rod Change, Change, If the experimental results are
diam, Cr DeL. Sch. DeL. Sch. M-G DeL. F N t o Sch. F N t o assumed to produce a normal dis-
Heat in. Eq NiEq Ni Eq FN FN FN M-G FN M-GFN tribution curve, a range of plus or
minus one standard deviation (sigma)
66 21.67 15.83 14.48 4.9 3.9 7.4 ( a ' + 2.5 ( a ) + 3.5 ( a | from the mean should encompass
.045 6.7 + 1.8 + 2.8
about 68% of the tests, and one of
.045 6.9 +2.0 +3.0
1/16 7.7 +2.8 + 3.8
plus or minus two sigma should en-
1/8 8.4 + 3 . 5 >a» +4.5 compass about 95% of the tests. It is
67 22.26 15.29 13.76 9.0 7.2 8 .2(a) -0.8 + 1.0 (a) obviously desirable that acceptance
.035 8.8 -0.2 + 1.6 tests for material be set so that there
.045 S.2 -0.8 + 1.0 is substantially less than a 10%
1/16 7.2 -1.8 0 chance of rejection due to testing
1/8 8.6 -0.4 + 1.4 error or variation. Thus, if a specifi-
68 21.02 16.00 14.53 2.3 1.3 4.8(a) +2.5(a) +3.5 (a » cation for a GTAW deposit were to be
3/32 3.7 + 1.4 + 2.4 established at 5 to 12 Ferrite Number
3/32 4.8 + 2.5 + 3.5
and the assumption made that mean
1/8 5.8 +3.5 +4.5
69 22.06 15.92 14.48 6.0 5.1
values of 5.0 FN on the low side or
3/32 6.0 0 +0.9
12.0 FN on the high side would be
70 21.85 15.69 14.10 6.0 5.5 acceptable, the receiving acceptance
3/32 6.3 +0.3 +0.8 test limits would require a test toler-
71 21.97 14.87 13.22 9.0 7.9 ance of not less than about 1.5 FN on
3/32 10.2 + 1.2 + 2.3 the low side and about 2.0 FN on the
high side in order to reduce to well
(a) Average for heat when more than one test per heat under 10% the chances of rejection at
the specification limits.
Amendments to specifications MIL-
E-0022200/2 and MIL-E-19933D for
Table 15 — Ferrite Data from 12 Type 308 GMAW Pads c o v e r e d and b a r e a u s t e n i t i c
chromium nickel stainless steel elec-
(For Explanation of Column Headings See Footnotes Table 9) trodes have for several years
accepted this philosophy of broader
Electr. Change, Change, receiving test tolerances to provide
Diam, Cr DeL. Sch. DeL. Sch. M-G DeL. F N t o Sch. F N t o for variations in pad preparation,
Heat in. Eq NiEq NiEq FN FN FN M-G FN M-GFN testing procedure, and the inherent
ferrite variations to be expected from
3 21.21 14.23 11.47 7.9 10.6 6.9 (a) -1.0,a) -3.7( a >
.030 7.3 -0.6 -3.3
pad to pad in the weld metal itself.
.035 6.5 -1.4 -4.1
1/16 6.8 -1.1 -3.8 Variations From Predicted FN To
1 21.44 15.59 12.68 4.8 8.0 Measured FN
.045 6.0 + 1.2 -2.0
2 21.67 14.60 11.90 8.6 10.5 The data from Tables 9 through 19
.045 8.9 +0.3 -1.6 are presented graphically in the bar
6 21.01 14.85 11.85 5.2 9.1 graphs of Fig. 4, which also presents
3/32 4.6 -0.6 -4.5
for comparison a summary bar graph
15 22.34 14.77 12.46 11.0 10.6
1/16 8.1 -2.9 -2.5
of similar data on covered electrode
18 21.88 14.72 11.93 9.1 10.9
weld pads of the same types drawn
3/32 10.8 + 1.7 -0.1 from the work described in Ref. 3. The
20 21.32 15.29 12.20 5.1 8.9 covered electrode graph has been
.045 2.1 -3.0 -6.8 condensed to a scale similar to that of
72 21.77 14.31 11.91 10.0 10.7 the other bar graphs for easier com-
.030 11.0 + 1.0 +0.3 parison. As stated in the note on Fig.
73 21.43 14.13 11.73 9.0 10.3 4, the width of each bar representing
.045 8.5 -0.5 -1.8 covered electrode data based on the
74 21.65 14.96 11.81 7.5 10.7
DeLong Diagram has been expanded
.035 7.4 -0.1 -3.3
15% to compensate for the increase
(a) Average for heat when more than one test per heat in numerical value in going from our
old percent ferrite to the new Ferrite
Number system.
Turning first to the covered elec-
deviation of about 1.2 FN, and an lated FN at high FN levels than at low trode summary bar graph data, it can
average weld deposit ferrite content FN levels (as shown in Table 5 at be seen that roughly 87% of the values
of 9.4 FN. The GMAW data are not ex- levels of 2, 6 and 11 FN), it could logi- were within ± 2.5 FN based on the De-
tensive enough to separate by type, cally be expected that a similar trend Long Diagram versus about 68%
but the overall standard deviation of would be present in ferrite measured within the same range based on the
0.96 FN at an average FN of 7.9 fits in with a Magne-Gage — i.e., a given Schaeffler Diagram; at ± 3 FN the
well with the trend indicated by the change in the factors influencing figures were about 92% and 78%,
GTAW data. measured FN would cause a greater respectively. The DeLong Diagram
Considering that in the DeLong change in measured FN at high FN data were significantly better than the
Diagram a given change in chemistry levels than at low FN levels. This Schaeffler, particularly on the low
causes a greater change in calcu- thesis is borne out by the strong in- side. This was logical because the De-

292-s I J U L Y 19 73
Long Diagram corrected not only for
core wire nitrogen contents, which Table 16 — Ferrite Data from 6 Type 308L GMAW Pads
differed appreciably, but also for the (For Explanation of Column Headings See Footnotes Table 9)
varying nitrogen pickup f r o m differ-
ences in electrode size and covering Electr. Change, Change,
types, ranging from an average 0 . 0 1 % diam, Cr DeL. Sch. DeL. Sch, M-G DeL. FN to Sch. FN to
N pickup on c o m m o n sizes of dc lime Heat in. Eq NiEq NiEq FN FN FN M-GFN M-GFN
type electrodes to 0.05% on some
sizes of special titania types. This 35 21.34 14.08 11.59 8.9 10.6
1/16 8.6 -0.3 -2.0
s p r e a d of 0 . 0 4 % in t h e t y p i c a l
36 20.92 14.19 11.31 6.8 10.2
nitrogen pickups in itself represents a 1/8 7.1 + 0.3 -3.1
change in nickel equivalent of about 42 22.36 14.49 11.49 12.1 14.0
1.2 and a corresponding change in FN .045 9.8 -2.3 -4.2
of approximately 4.0. Appropriate 76 21.52 13.62 11.58 11.1 11.0
corrections for the varying nitrogen .045 9.1 -2.0 -1.9
p i c k u p d e p e n d i n g on e l e c t r o d e 77 21.04 13.38 11.46 10.0 10.2
covering and size plus further correc- 1/16 10.8 +0.8 +0.6
tions in the 316, 316L and 309 fami- 78 21.33 13.52 11.48 10.7 10.9
lies as described in reference 3 logi- .045 10.0 -0.7 -0.9
cally explain the better results o b -
tained with the DeLong Diagram on
covered electrodes.
Table 17 — Ferrite Data from 2 Type 347 GMAW Pads
However, the significant improve-
ment found for covered electrodes (For Explanation of Column Headings See Footnotes Table 9)
with the DeLong Diagram does not Electr. Change, Change,
carry over to the GTAW summary bar diam, Cr DeL. Sch. DeL. Sch. M-G DeL. F N t o Sch. F N t o
g r a p h s . T h e r e , the D e L o n g a n d Heat in. Eq NiEq NiEq FN FN FN M-GFN M-GFN
Schaeffler results are essentially
equivalent in total. On the DeLong 29 20.61 14.57 11.96 4.6 7.9
Diagram approximately 94% of the .045 6.1 + 1.5 -1.8
75 21.15 14.82 11.70 5.7 9.8
calculated values are w i t h i n - i 3 FN of
.045 4.1 -1.6 -5.7
the measured Ferrite Numbers, and
on the Schaeffler Diagram about 9 1 %
are within this range. These figures
are comparable to those cited above
for the DeLong covered electrode Table 18 — Ferrite Data from 8 Type 309 GMAW Pads
summary bar graph, where a ± 3 FN
(For Explanation ->t Column Headings See Footnotes Table 9)
range included about 92% of the
values, and are appreciably better Electr. Change, Change,
diam, Cr DeL. Sch. DeL. Sch. M-G DeL. FN to Sch. FN to
than the Schaeffler covered electrode
Heat in. Eq NiEq Ni Eq FN FN FN M-GFN M-G FN
summary, which showed only 78%
within ± 3 FN. 46 25.61 18.16 15.46 13.7 10.4 11.3<a> - 2 . 4 (a» +0.9(a)
.035 12.4 -1.3 + 2.0
With regard to individual types
10.2 -3.5 -0.2
welded with the GTAW process, the 45 24.70 19.34 16.46 6.5 6.6
Schaeffler Diagram understates the .045 8.5 +2.0 + 1.9
316, 316L and 309 families as it did for 47 24.96 18.40 15.70 10.3 8.7
covered electrodes 3 . The DeLong Dia- 1/16 10.7 +0.4 +2.0
gram has a better balance on these 49 24.86' 19.03 15.91 8.1 8.0
three more highly alloyed types. The 1/16 9.1 + 1.0 + 1.1
slope of the ferrite lines is greater on 50 25.61 19.48 16.48 9.8 8.3
the DeLong Diagram than on the 1/16 7.8 -2.0 -0.5
51 24.67 18.51 15.51 8.8 8.4
Schaeffler, so that the DeLong Dia-
1/8 8.6 -0.2 + 0.2
gram predicts higher ferrite values 57 24.83 17.77 14.71 11.9 10.4
than Schaeffler for types 316 and 1/16 13.0 + 1.1 +2.6
316L at normal nitrogen levels; this
difference between the two predic- (a) Average for heat when more than one test per heat
tions is even more pronounced for
type 309 weld metal. With 308 and
308L weld metal (probably also 347)
the DeLong and Schaeffler Diagrams Table 19 — Ferrite Data from 1 Type 316 and 3 Type 316L GMAW Pads
produce essentially equivalent (For Explanation of Column Headings See Footnotes Table 9)
results. Where the balance is a little Electr. Change, Change,
low as on the 308L, it is low on both diam, Cr DeL. Sch. DeL. Sch. M-G DeL. FN to Sch. FN to
diagrams. The ER308 and ER308L Heat in. Eq NiEq NiEq FN FN FN M-GFN M-GFN
rods average about 0.045% nitrogen
and an 0.020% pickup will yield a 61 22.02 17.05 14.92 3.0 '3.7
deposit average of 0.065% nitrogen, (316) .035 4.3 + 1.3 +0.6
r e a s o n a b l y c l o s e to t h e 0 . 0 6 % 69 — 22.06 15.89 14.48 6.2 5.1 e.i<a> + 2 . 1 <a) + 1.0(a>
(316L) .035 5.4 -0.8 +0.3
nitrogen content which we believe
5/64 6.7 +0.5 + 1.6
was a s s u m e d by S c h a e f f l e r for 67 17.11
covered electrode deposits. Thus the — 22.26 13.76 3.7 7.2 _ —
(316L) 1/16 3.7 0 -3.5
Schaeffler Diagram would be ex-
pected to give reasonable results for (a) Average for heat when more than one test per heat

W E L D I N G R E S E A R C H S U P P LE M E N T I 2 9 3 - s
 nitrogen pickup reduces the meas-
Table 20 — Summary of GTAW Ferrite Data ured ferrite significantly and brings it
down close to the general range pre-
dicted by the diagram.
(For Explanation of Column Headings See Footnotes Table 9)

Change, Change, Discussion of V a r i a b l e s in

DeL. Sch. DeL. Sch. M-G DeL. FN Sch. FN M e a s u r i n g or Predicting Ferrite
Item CrEq NiEq NiEq FN FN FN to M-G FN to M-G FN
It is quite feasible to identify a n u m -
ER308, 53 tests ber of variables or groups of variables
Range 20.96 12.44 11.12 7.0 8.4 7.2 -4.6 -3.5
involved in the processes of measur-
to to to to to to to to
22.34 14.85 12.69 16.3 13.3 14.3 +4.5 +3.2 ing or predicting the ferrite content of
Avg. 21.50 13.82 11.75 10.6 10.7 10.6 0 -0.1 austenitic stainless steel weld metals.
Some of these can also be treated
ER347, 3 tests quantitatively, as has been done pre-
Range 20.61 13.64 11.63 6.3 8.6 5.8 -1.3 -2.9
to to to to to
viously in this paper for the variations
to to to
20.78 14.12 11.84 7.1 8.7 8.6 + 2.3 0 between individual tests with the
Avg. 20.70 13.88 11.74 6.6 8.6 7.5 + 1.0 -1.1 same heat of filler metal. The major
categories, with some background on
ER308L , 22 tests
e a c h , a r e d i s c u s s e d in i t e m s 1
Range 20.92 12.16 10.99 8.7 10.0 7.3 -4.1 -4.0
to to to to to to to
through 5 below.
to
22.36 14.10 11.70 17.7 14.3 14.8 + 3.4 + 1.9 1. Test variations, which include
Avg. 21.35 13.33 11.38 11.5 11.3 11.0 -0.5 -0.3 the variables of welding technique,
pad t y p e , c o o l i n g r a t e , s u r f a c e
ER309, 23 tests preparation, and measurement
Range 24.64 16.16 14.38 8.9 7.0 6.2 -5.7 -1.5 errors. Many of these variables are in-
to to to to to to to to terrelated. Earlier in this paper the
25.61 18.35 16.17 19.9 12.7 18.6 + 1.8 + 5.9
rather substantial standard deviations
Avg. 24.99 17.73 15.50 12.5 9.2 11.3 -1.2 + 2.2
found by types and overall in the
ER316, 14 tests GTAW and GMAW tests have -been
Range 21.19 15.81 14.32 2.4 1.8 2.2 -2.2 -1.2 d i s c u s s e d . C h a n g e s in pad t y p e ,
to to to to to to to to welding procedure or surface prep-
22.29 16.71 14.91 6.3 5.4 6.8 + 2.8 + 2.9 aration technique could further in-
Avg. 21.86 16.23 14.60 4.0 3.5 4.4 +0.4 + 0.9 crease these standard deviations.
A word of caution here: The stan-
ER316L , 14 tests
dard deviations presented for GTAW
Range 21.02 14.87 13.22 2.3 1.3 3.7 -1.8 0
to to tc
do not necessarily correspond to
to to to to to
22.26 16.00 14.53 9.0 7.9 10.2 + 3.5 +4.5 those which are applicable to covered
Avg. 21.76 15.64 14.17 6.0 4.8 7.1 + 1.1 + 2.3 electrodes. If the variables are similar
in magnitude, the standard deviations
for covered electrode deposits could
be e x p e c t e d to be lower s i m p l y
because the average ferrite contents
308 and 308L GTAW deposits. g r a m w a s p r e d i c a t e d u p o n an are lower. For the 308 and 309
For the GMAW comparison less average 0.06% nitrogen in weld families the average covered elec-
data were available to work with. The metal of these t y p e s . W h i l e the trode deposits will contain about 6 FN
summary bar graph shows a much average electrode nitrogen is now as against the 10.6 FN average in the
better performance for the DeLong below this, about 0.045%, our assum- GTAW deposits.
Diagram than for the Schaeffler. All of ed pickup of 0.040% N will produce a Conclusions on the pertinent stan-
the values given for the DeLong Dia- typical 0.085% nitrogen in the deposit, dard deviations for covered elec-
gram are within ± 3.5 FN, while only 0.025% over the figure that Schaeff- trode deposits should await the c o n -
8 1 % of the Schaeffler values are ler assumed. At a multiplying factor of clusion of the study being conducted
within that range. These results are 30, this excess nitrogen is equivalent by the Advisory Subcommittee of the
logical because the average assumed to 0.75 nickel or about 2.5 Ferrite WRC High Alloys Committee. Un-
nitrogen pickup of 0.040% for GMAW Number. Confirming this, the data published data submitted to the WRC
would a p p r e c i a b l y reduce the show that on the average the meas- S u b c o m m i t t e e at their N o v e m b e r
measured values and cause them to ured GMAW results are about 2.5 FN 1972 meeting indicated that changes
fall well below the values calculated lower than the figi/res predicted using in heat input and welding current over
from the Schaeffler Diagram, which the Schaeffler Diagram. The Schaeff- a rather wide range have little in-
does not correct for nitrogen. Using ler pattern with 309, 316 and 316L fluence on measured ferrite content
the Schaeffler Diagram, six of the thir- does not follow the pattern of the 308 of covered electrode deposits, except
ty two tests run are outside ± 3.5 FN family. Although the number of tests that a very low current for the elec-
and all six are negative, i.e., the is not large, the measured values trode size involved can decrease the
m e a s u r e d is well below the c a l - average slightly higher than the cal- ferrite level by about 1.5 FN, p r o b -
culated, as expected. culated, but within the general ± 3.5 ably due to somewhat higher nitrogen
The GMAW pattern by types is FN tolerance. This apparent agree- pickup than normal. A longer than
reasonably normal for all types with ment is due to two opposing influ- normal arc length, of course, can
the D e L o n g D i a g r a m . Using the ences: The Schaeffler Diagram u n - decrease the covered electrode
Schaeffler D i a g r a m , however, t h e derstates the ferrite content of these f e r r i t e level a p p r e c i a b l y d u e to
308, 347 a n d 3 0 8 L t y p e s s h o w types, as demonstrated by both the nitrogen pickup, as is true with GTAW
m e a s u r e d ferrite well below the c o v e r e d e l e c t r o d e data 3 a n d t h e and G M A W welding.
calculated values. The Schaeffler Dia- G T A W d a t a ; h o w e v e r , the h i g h 2. Variations in the chemistry

294-s I J U L Y 1973
values used to predict the ferrite from
a diagram. Analysis for C, M n , Si, Cr,
Table 21 — Summary of GMAW Ferrite Data
Ni, Mo and N is obviously subject to
error which depends upon the skill (For Explanation of Column Headings See Footnotes Table 9)
and experience of the laboratory and
the care exercised in analysis. A Change, Change,
previous paper 3 discussed this point DeL. Sch. DeL. Sch. M-G DeL. FN Sch.FN
and made assumptions which led to a Item CrEq NiEq NiEq FN FN FN to M - G F N to M-G FN
calculated s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n of
about 0.55 FN based upon high quali-
ER308 12 tests
ty chemistry by an experienced lab-
Range 21.01 14.13 11.47 4.8 8.0 2.1 -3.0 -6.8
oratory. to
to to to to to to to
This figure seems far too low in 22.34 15.59 12.68 11.0 10.9 11.0 + 1.7 +0.3
view of a much more recent study 11 Avg. 21.51 14.66 11.91 7.8 10.1 7.3 -0.5 -2.8
based on comparing steel mill ladle
analyses on types 308 and 308L with ER347 2 tests
Range 20.61 14.57 11.70 4.6 7.9 4.1 -1.6 -5.7
electrode producers' receiving anal-
to to to to to to to to
yses. Statistical analysis of this data 11 14.82
21.15 11.96 5.7 9.8 6.1 + 1.5 -1.8
showed a standard deviation of 0.164 Avg. 20.88 14.70 11.83 5.2 8.9 5,1 -0.1 -3.8
on the C h r o m i u m Equivalent and
0.165 on t h e N i c k e l E q u i v a l e n t ; ER308L . 6 tests
together these deviations produce a Range 20.92 13.38 11.31 6.8 10.2 7.1 -2.3 -4.2
calculated standard deviation of 0.90 to to to to to to to to
FN on the revised DeLong Diagram. 22.36 14.49 11.59 12.1 14.0 10.8 + 0.8 +0.6
The heats involved averaged around Avg. 21.42 13.88 11.49 9.9 11.2 9.2 -0.7 -1.9
10.5 FN. This later work did not incor-
ER309 8 tests
porate variations in nitrogen analysis
Range 24.67 17.77 14.71 6.5 6.6 7.8 -3.5 -0.5
but probably overstated the variations to to to to to to to to
due to carbon, since the mill analysis 25.61 19.48 16.48 13.7 10.4 13.0 + 2.0 +2.6
was often a ladle and not a check Avg. 25.11 18.61 15.71 10.4 8.9 10.0 ^0.3 + 1.1
analysis, which tends to be higher
than a ladle. The data from the receiv- ER316, 316L 4 tests
ing laboratories involved the average Range 22.02 15.89 •13.76 3.0 3.7 3.7 -0.8 -3.5
of multiple tests on a heat, and the to to to to to to to to
mill ladle analysis was usually also the 22.26 17.11 14.92 6.2 7.2 6.7 + 1.3 + 1.6
average of multiple tests. Avg. 22.10 16.49 14.41 4.8 5.3 5.0 +0.3 -0.3

In both cases, therefore, the stan-

dard deviations cited were lower than
those to be expected from chemical
analysis drawn from a single deter- Table 22 — Summary of Variances and Standard Deviations from all Heats on which More
mination or from analyses obtained Than One Test Was Run
by laboratories less familiar with and
less skilled in stainless steel anal- Item GTAW GMAW
ysis. Almost all typical chemistry re- (a)
Type 316 316L All 308 308L 309 All
sults would have to be considered 7
No. of tests (A) 11 11 94 40 16 14
poorer than the values cited; i.e., the No. of heats (B) 3 36 14 7 6 3
5
influence of errors in chemical deter- A minus B 6 8 58 26 9 8 4
minations on the calculated ferrite Total variance, FN 4.14 5.56 82.15 36.01 11.43 24.93 3.68
content w o u l d almost always be Test Variance, FN .69 .70 1.41 1.39 1.43 3.10 .92
greater than those estimated here. Standard deviation
FN .83 .83 1.19 1.18 1.20 1.76 .96
As d i s c u s s e d p r e v i o u s l y w i t h
Range of FN on heat 2.2/ 4.8/ 2.2/ 7.5/ 8.1/ 6.8/ 5.4/
respect to Table 5, the spacing 12.4
5.7 8.2 14.3 13.0 12.0 14.3
between ferrite lines at a high level of Avg. FN
ferrite (about 11%) is larger on the of heats 5.1 6.1 9.4 10.6 10.7 10.4 7.9
Schaeffler Diagram than on the De-
Long Diagram. As a result, the stan- (a) Includes one heat of 347. 2 tests
dard deviations in Chromium and
Nickel Equivalents reported in the re-
cent study 1 1 result in a s t a n d a r d
deviation of only 0.64% ferrite by the
Schaeffler Diagram. or better. tors for elements where they may
Another publication12 which Overall, a standard deviation of not have different factors at certain levels
describes a method of determining less than 1.0 FN for either diagram t h a n at o t h e r ( i . e . , n o n - l i n e a r
the ferrite content of stainless steel appears to be a good figure to use for behavior), errors in line location, etc.
castings based upon the Schaeffler chemical laboratories under good Also variations due to residuals not
Diagram shows a scatter band of control. This standard deviation taken into account in the calculation,
about ± 1.8% at an average 5% ferrite applies to ferrite contents of 10 to 15 or inherent variations in response by
content and about ± 2.2% at an FN and could be lower, perhaps one heat versus another. We are not
average 10% ferrite content "due to around 0.8 FN, if the ferrite content prepared to estimate the extent of
uncertainty of c h e m i c a l analysis were below 6 FN. these variations at present.
d e t e r m i n a t i o n s for individual ele- 3. Variations in diagram construc- 4. Instrument calibration. As dis-
ments". It is assumed that the author tion, due to i n c o r r e c t f a c t o r s for c u s s e d in the i n t r o d u c t i o n , this
intended this to cover a 2 sigma value elements, the approximations in fac- variable has been demonstrated to be

WELDING RESEARCH SUPPLEMENT! 295-s

 tion, and may be too severe. The
GTAW GMAW greatest d i f f e r e n c e between c a l -
DELONG SCHAEFFLER DELONG SCHAEFFLER culated and measured ferrite values
obviously occurs when the measured
value and the calculated value are on
15-
opposite sides of the "true" value, but
10- Fig. 4 treats the data as though the
308, 308, calculated is the "true" value, which is
5- obviously incorrect and tends to
M7
0-
$ ri _n DL -5 0 +5 -5 0 +5
overstate the deviations.
-5 0 + 5 - 5 0 + 5 On the other hand, the difference
between calculated and measured
5 must obviously encompass the total

riTti,^ ™LM
308L v a r i a t i o n resulting f r o m Items 1
o- o , Vrtjh , .rrfh.n, , through 4 above. Thus it is logical to
-5 0 + 5 - 5 0 +5 -5 0 + 5 - 5 0 +5
expect that the overall s t a n d a r d

^fi4 ,309, ,itfh

5 - deviation s h o u l d be significantly
309
0-
-5
^T±+
0 + 5 - 5
• . w»
0 +5
larger than any of the standard devia-
tions due to Items 1 through 4 individ-
-5 0 + 5 - 5 0 +5 ually.
5-
316
0 — , rri.rVri ji L ^ Caution
-5 0 + 5 - 5 0 +5
316, The conclusions reached here are
probably not directly applicable to
0 , rrftfTI ,316 L , , JlTTi, o , ,^n ,3I6L, n fn stainless steel castings, a l t h o u g h
-5 0 ^ - 5 - 5 0 +5 •5 0 +5 0 +5
40
some of the principles may be. More
importantly, the conclusions cannot
be directly applied to wrought stain-
less steels because such factors as
soaking the billets for rolling, hot
GTAW w o r k i n g , solution a n n e a l i n g , etc.,
SUMMARY have very significant effects on the
20 quantity, size and shape of the ferrite
n - and therefore on its relative magnetic
- GMAW response.
rj
,_, SUMMARY
"j-.
Conclusions
^cf... ", if:
+ 5 + 5
In \wu J * +5 -5 0 +5
1. Nitrogen pickup in inert gas weld-
ing.
a. Nitrogen pickup is a significant
factor which reduces the ferrite
BAR GRAPH OF COVERED
ELECTRODE DEPOSITS FOR content of austenitic stainless steel
COMPARISON. DATA FROM weld deposits.
3 0- WORK REPORTED IN REFERENCE b. In GTAW a pickup of 0.02% N
COVERED
ELECTRODE 3, SCALED DOWN TO THE may be assumed; this is equiv-
SUMMARY SAME HEIGHT AS GTAW alent to about 2 FN.
SUMMARY BAR GRAPH. DATA
20- c. In GMAW a pickup of 0.04% N
FOR DeLONG DIAGRAM
EXPANDED 15 PER-CENT HOR- may be assumed, equivalent to
IZONTALLY TO ROUGHLY COM- about 4 FN.
PENSATE FOR THE CHANGE d. The amount of nitrogen picked
10-
TO FERRITE NUMBER. up can be quite variable in both
processes, with much higher
0 —
-5 0
tw
+5 +5
pickup possible if the arc protec-
tion is poor.
e. Magnetic tests for ferrite c o n -
Fig. 4 — Bar graphs showing frequency vs. change from predicted ferrite to measured tent are the most convenient way to
ferrite. Plus sign indicates predicted lower than measured, minus sign indicates predicted determine if excessive nitrogen
higher than measured pickup has occurred.
2. Carbon loss in inert gas welding.
a. Significant carbon losses can
o c c u r w h e n w e l d i n g with filler
a major one in the past8-9 but should how to treat the data to derive a metal having normal carbon con-
be minor after the WRC instrument reasonably valid standard deviation. tents.
c a l i b r a t i o n p r o c e d u r e 1 0 is m o r e The differences presented in Tables 9 b. In GTAW the loss appears to in-
generally accepted. The WRC A d - through 21 are between values deter- crease linearly as the welding r o d
visory Subcommittee program dis- mined by entirely different methods, carbon level increases, from zero
cussed under 1 will provide excellent i.e., direct measurement of FN versus loss at about 0.02% carbon to
information on this variable. FN calculated using chemical analy- about 0.02% loss at 0.06% carbon.
5. O v e r a l l variations from sis. c. The pattern of carbon loss in
predicted FN to measured FN. This The variations shown on the bar GMAW is similar to that in GTAW,
has been discussed previously in this graphs in Fig. 4 probably represent but the amount lost is only about
paper. We are not sure at this time the highest possible standard devia- one f o u r t h the a m o u n t lost in

296-s I J U L Y 1973
 GTAW up to 0.06% electrode car-
bon.
3. Variations in FN measurements on
multiple pads of the same filler
metal heat.
a. The s t a n d a r d deviation for
m e a s u r e d F e r r i t e N u m b e r in
GTAW increases as the ferrite con-
tent increases over t h e range
studied. At a measured 6 FN the
standard deviation is about 0.8 FN
(Types 316 and 316L) and this in-
creases to a b o u t 1.2 FN at a
measured 11 FN (Type 308 and
308L). An average standard devia-
tion of 1.8 FN was found for Type
309 at about 11 measured FN, but
this deserves more study.
b. Based on much less data than
were studied for GTAW, the stan-
dard deviations for GMAW tests
were close to those of the GTAW
tests and the trends were similar.
c. To provide for test-to-test
variations in measured GTAW and
GMAW ferrite, receiving accep-
tance tests should allow for vari-
ations between the supplier's'tests
and the receiving tests, e.g., if the
supplier is required to meet 5 FN
minimum the customer's re-
ceiving test requirement should be
set at 3.5 FN m i n i m u m . Similarly, if
a maximum of 10 or 15 FN is re-
q u i r e d of the supplier the re-
ceiving limit should be set at 12.5
or 17.5 FN respectively. These
figures represent approximate two
sigma tolerance levels based on
the data studied.
4. Uncertainties in the determination
of d e p o s i t c h e m i s t r y are s i g -
nificant variables in the calcula-
t i o n of f e r r i t e f r o m any c o n -
stitution diagram. From various
sources it is concluded that two
sigma levels of about 1.6 FN at cal-
culated ferrite of 6 FN and less and
about 2.0 FN at 10 to 15 FN cal-
culated are reasonable values for
this variable if excellent chemistry
is available. For average to poor
c h e m i s t r y c h e c k s these values
should be increased appreciably.
5. Comparison of the Schaeffler and
DeLong Diagrams for inert gas
shielded deposits.
a. The diagrams are essentially
e q u i v a l e n t in the d i f f e r e n c e s
between predicted and measured
ferrite in GTAW deposits of Types
308, 308L and 347.
b. The Schaeffler Diagram under-
states the ferrite content of the
more highly alloyed Type 316,
316L and 309 GTAW deposits. The
DeLong Diagram is better on these
grades, as is also the case with
covered electrode deposits.
c. The DeLong Diagram is better
for GMAW deposits due to higher
nitrogen pickup in those deposits.
d. The differences to be expected
between measured and cal-
culated ferrite contents when using
either diagram are greater at the
higher ferrite levels found in GTAW
and G M A W deposits than when
using the DeLong Diagram at the
lower ferrite levels of the covered
electrode deposits studied in the
original work leading to that dia-
gram. However, the differences
are slightly lower than those e n -
countered with covered electrode
deposits using the Schaeffler Dia-
gram. With GTAW and GMAW de-
posits a spread of up to about
± 3.5 FN or % ferrite can be ex-
pected between measured and
calculated values, versus about
± 4.5 FN or % ferrite for covered
electrode deposits using the
Schaeffler Diagram,
e. In types with inherently lower
ferrite content, such as 316 and
316L, the range of differences be-
tween measured and calculated
ferrite seems lower than in the
types with inherently higher ferrite
levels, such as 308, 308L and 309.
6. Direct m e a s u r e m e n t of ferrite,
although it requires some allow-
ance for test variations as de-
scribed in conclusion 3, offers the
most d e p e n d a b l e a p p r o a c h to
determining the ferrite content of
weld deposits.
7. The variables involved in calcula-
tion seem greater in total than the
variables involved in measure-
ment.
8. The reconciling of both calculated
and measured ferrite content
within one frameowrk — e.g.,
where a specification requires a
given ferrite range to be met both
measured and calculated — re-
quires the acceptance of rather
broad tolerances because stan-
dard deviations, both known and
u n d e f i n e d , of both systems of
rating the ferrite content must be
a c c o m m o d a t e d if the r e q u i r e -
ments are to be met on a practical
and workable basis. The data show
that the total tolerance in such
case may have to be as high as
± 3.4 to 4.0 FN for GTAW and
GMAW deposits averaging around
11 FN.
9. Conclusion 8 must not be inter-
preted to mean that the ferrite con-
tent of a weld deposit cannot be
measured or calculated to closer
limits than ± 4 FN. Pending the
completion of the WRC coopera-
tive program on covered elec-
trode deposits, which will also
cover the influence of pad size and
preparation, we are estimating the
following overall tolerances for
m e a s u r e m e n t / c a l c u l a t i o n . The
base is the average FN as meas-
ured on a welded pad of the type
defined in this paper.
WELDING
Single (avg) Est. 2 sigma (95%) tol-
measured pad erance where the avg
FN compared ferrite content is:
to:
0-8 FN 8-14 FN
Avg measured (see above 3a & 6)
FNof5or
more pads of ±1.6 FN ±2.4 FN
the batch
Calculated FN (see above 4, 5,7&
from good de- 8 but prime data
posit chemis- source is Fig. 4)
try and dia-
gram' 3 '
Schaeffler
covered ± 5.0 FN ± 5.5 FN
bare ± 3.3 FN ± 4.0 FN
DeLong
covered ± 3.3 FN ± 4.0 FN
bare ± 2.7 FN ± 3.3 FN
(a) The estimated tolerances would
probably be lower if the average of multi-
ple measured FN determinations were
used, and would be higher if poorer
chemistry values were used.
References
1. DeLong, W. T., "Discussion of the In-
ternational Testing Program for the Deter-
mination of Ferrite Content in Austenitic
Stainless Weld Metal", IIW Document ll-C-
331-70.
2. Schaeffler, A. L., "Constitution Dia-
gram for Stainless Steel Weld Metal",
Metal Progress, 56, 680 and 680-B (No-
vember 1949).
3. DeLong, W., Ostrom, G., and Szu-
machowski, E., "Measurement and Calcu-
lation of Ferrite in Stainless Steel Weld
Metal", The Welding Journal, 35 (11),
Research Suppl., 526-s to 533-s (1956).
4. Simpkinson, T. V. and Lavigne, M. J.,
"Detection of Ferrite by Its Magnetism,"
Metal Progress, 55, 164-167 (February
1949).
5. Simpkinson, T. V., "Ferrite in Auste-
nitic Steels Estimated Accurately," Iron
Age, 170, 166-169 (Dec. 11, 1952).
6. Fleischmann, W. L., "Determination
of Ferrite in Type 347 Stainless Steel
Weld Deposit", The Welding Journal,
33 (9), Research Suppl., 459-s to 468-s
(1954).
7. Gunia, R. B. and Ratz, G. A., "The
Measurement of Delta Ferrite in Austenit-
ic Stainless Steels", WRC Bulletin 132,
August, 1968.
8. DeLong, W. T., "Measurement and
Effects of Ferrite in Stainless Steel Weld
Metal, Subcommittee Meeting of Nov. 10
in New York" (Advisory Subcommittee of
the High Alloys Committee of the Welding
Research Council), IIW Doc. II-C-372-71.
9. Rosendahl, C-H, "Ferrite in Austenit-
ic Stainless Steel Weld Metal; Round
Robin Testing Programme 1971-1972",
IIW Doc. 11-631-72.
10. "Calibration Procedure for Instru-
ments to Measure the Delta Ferrite Con-
tent of Austenitic Stainless Steel Weld
Metal", Welding Journal 52 (2), Research
Suppl., 69-s to 72-s (1973).
11. Hebble, T. L., "Statistical Treatment
of Chemical Analysis Variability", Sup-
plemental minutes of November '72 WRC
Advisory Subcommittee minutes and
phone conversation of 1/16/73.
12. E. A. Schoefer, "Welding of High
Alloy Castings", Steel Founders' Society of
American, Publication 772-5M1.
RESEARCH S U P P L E M E N T ! 297-s