Measurement of Weld-Metal Ferrite

As described previously, weld-metal ferrite content significantly influences both the weldability
and service performance of austenitic stainless steels. Weld-metal ferrite content can either be
predicted using constitution diagrams, such as the WRC-1992 diagram (Fig. 1), or measured
using instruments that take advantage of the ferromagnetic characteristics of the ferrite phase.

The term Ferrite Number, designated FN, has been adopted as a relative measure for quantifying
ferrite content using standardized magnetic techniques (Ref 20). The FN approach was developed
in order to reduce the large variation in ferrite levels determined on a given specimen when
measured using different techniques by different laboratories. FN approximates the "volume
percent ferrite" at levels below 8 FN. Above this level, deviation occurs, where the FN value
exceeds the actual volume percent ferrite. For example, a weld metal with 16 FN contains
approximately 13.8 vol%.

A number of instruments are commercially available for determining the ferrite content of welds,
including the Magne gage, Severn gage, and ferrite scope (Ref 20). The Severn gage and ferrite
scope are particularly applicable for use in the field or on the production floor. The ferrite scope is
also useful in measuring ferrite on welds of small cross section, as is often the case with electron-
beam welds. Calibration procedures for magnetic measurement techniques have been
recommended by the American Welding Society in AWS A4.2 (Ref 20). These procedures use
either the thickness standards of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) or
actual weld-metal standards that include certified levels of weldmetal ferrite.

However, it is important to understand that it is impossible to accurately determine the absolute

ferrite content of austenitic stainless steel weld metals. Even on undiluted weld pads, ferrite
variations from pad to pad must be expected, because of slight changes in welding and measuring
variables. On a large group of pads made from one heat or lot, using a standard pad welding and
preparation procedure, two sigma values indicate that 95% of the tests are expected to be within a
range of approximately ±2.2 FN at about 8 FN. If different pad welding and preparation
procedures are used, then these variations will increase. Variations are also introduced based on
the composition of the ferrite. The magnetic attraction of the ferrite may vary significantly with
chemical composition. Thus, for the same volume percent ferrite, the FN determined by magnetic
instruments may vary for weld pads made using different filler materials.

Even larger variations in ferrite content may be encountered if the welding technique allows
excessive nitrogen pickup, in which case the ferrite can be much lower than otherwise expected.
A nitrogen pickup of 0.10% typically will decrease the FN by about 8.

Austenitic stainless steel base materials are intentionally balanced compositionally to produce
inherently lower ferrite content than matching weld metals. This is done, in part, to facilitate the
hot workability of the material during forging, extrusion, and rolling operations. For this reason,
special attention is required when making autogenous welds if primary ferrite solidification is
desired to prevent solidification cracking. In general, weld metal diluted with base metal will also
be somewhat lower in ferrite than the undiluted weld metal. For example, this effect is commonly
observed when welding types 304 or 304L base metals with ER308 or ER309 filler materials.

The agreement between the predicted and measured weld-metal ferrite content is also strongly
dependent on the accuracy of the chemical analysis. Variations in the results of the chemical
analyses encountered from laboratory to laboratory can have significant effects on the predicted
ferrite level, particularly if these variations occur in the detection of carbon and nitrogen. It is not
uncommon for predicted and measured ferrite levels to differ by as much as 4 to 8 FN.

Nitrogen-Strengthened Stainless Steels. The addition of nitrogen to austenitic stainless

steels significantly improves the strength and pitting resistance of the alloy, and may also improve
cryogenic toughness. These alloys may contain relatively high levels of manganese, because
manganese increases the solubility of nitrogen in the austenite matrix, in addition to substituting
for nickel as an austenite stabilizer.

In general, the weldability of these alloys is similar to the 300-series materials. The presence of
ferrite in the as-deposited weld microstructure reduces weld-cracking susceptibility for the same
reasons described previously. The prediction of weld-metal ferrite content in these alloys has
historically been problematic, because the DeLong diagram did not adequately account for large
concentrations of nitrogen and manganese. Both Espy and Hull developed equivalency
relationships and predictive diagrams that better coped with high levels of nitrogen. The Espy
diagram (Ref 21) represented a modification of the DeLong diagram and accounted for higher
nitrogen and manganese levels. Hull (Ref 22) developed equivalencies (see Table 3) to predict
ferrite levels in high-nitrogen, high-manganese stainless steels. The Ni eq of 14.2 developed by
Hull for nitrogen is significantly lower than the value of 20.0 used in the WRC-1992 diagram.
However, the omission of manganese in the diagram is in agreement with the small Ni eq assigned
by Hull. Limited data suggest that the Hull and WRC-1992 diagrams are in fair agreement when
predicting weld ferrite contents in these alloys with nitrogen contents as high as approximately
0.25%. At the higher nitrogen contents, one may expect that the WRC-1992 diagram would
predict higher ferrite contents than that of the Hull diagram. From Table 3, it can be seen that
Hammer and Svennson (Ref 23) used the same nickel equivalent developed by Hull.

Because of the high nitrogen contents of these steels, weld porosity may sometimes be
encountered. The critical level of nitrogen, in terms of porosity problems, is lower for electron-
beam welds made in vacuum (approximately 0.25%) than it is for welds made by gas-tungsten
arc welding (GTAW), where porosity problems are usually not encountered at nitrogen levels less
than approximately 0.35%.